Sunny Honey (Student) 01 April 2009

Claim of Prosecution

A PROBELM IN HAND ?

Mr.A, is running a clothes shop in New Delhi. On 15 March, 2009, when there was great rush of customers in the shop, Mrs.Z of New Delhi came to the shop and made certain enquires about the rates of certain items but she did not buy anything. Mr.A became suspiciuos and went after Mrs.Z. He saw Mrs.Z handing over the Shirt to Mrs.X standing on the road. Mr.A snatched the shirt from Mrs.X alleging theft from the shop. Mrs.Z told that she has brouht the shirt to consult Mrs.X for purchasing? Mr.A reported the matter to police and a case was registered ?

WHAT SHOULD BE THE STAND OF PROSECUTION IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION TO PROVE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT MRS.Z TOOK SHIRT AWAY WITH THE PRIME INTENT OF STEALING IT, CAN MRS.X ALSO BE PLEADED AS A ACCOMPLIACE (AND MADE A PARTY TO CRIME),

WHAT IS TO BE PROVED (WHETHER DISHONEST INTENT OF TAKING AWAY CAN CORRESPOND THE CASE OF PROSECUTION) ?

CAN SOMEBODY QUOTE APPROPRIATE CASES TO PROVE THIS SITUATION ? (LEADING CITATIONS ON THEFT REQUIRED) ?

Reply Follow

8 Replies

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil) 01 April 2009

students may please answer first.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 02 April 2009

Interesting Question. Yes, student may lead the answer.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 02 April 2009

Read the case of Pyare Lal Vs State of Rajasthan (1963) CrLJ 178 (SC) In this case SC observed that "Taking out of possession even if intended to return is theft"

A.Mohamed Thaheer (ADVOCATE) 02 April 2009

Please refer section 378 of IPC for the definition of Theft and 379 speaks about the quantum of maximum punishment for the offence.

The important ingredient of the offence to be proved are as follows:

a) dishonest intention

b) without consent of the owner

c) taking away the theft goods

In this case, onus of proof lies only on the complainant with respect to the dishonest intention of stealing by the accused. If tnis is proved, then a charge can be framed by prosecution, after proper investigaion of the complaint against the accused.

Sunny Honey (Student) 02 April 2009

Read the case of Pyare Lal Vs State of Rajasthan (1963) CrLJ 178 (SC) In this case SC observed that "Taking out of possession even if intended to return is theft"

SIR,

CAN U PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH THE ABOVE CITED JUDGEMENT COPY.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 03 April 2009

Check your mail box.

Ashey 03 April 2009

Mr. Assumi .. Please send me copy of the judgment

B.N.Rajamohamed (advocate / commissioner of oaths) 05 April 2009

It is very tough to prove the case of theft. Even if it is an attempt to commit theft you must prove the mensrea of the accused at the time of the attempt of theft which is very difficult for you to prove. As you say that, Mrs.X was standing out side the shop even there is no case of running out of sight and chasing them red handed. So, your case will not succeed.