Skip to content


The Queen Vs. Begarayi Krishan Saranu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad373
AppellantThe Queen
RespondentBegarayi Krishan Saranu
Excerpt:
penal code, sections 83, 411 - receiving stolen property--discharge of child-thief--doli incapax--proof of theft--conviction of receiver. - - 2. the first witness was, however, discharged under section 83 of the indian penal code, and the conviction is referred to us as bad in law, on the ground that, as there was no theft, the property in question was not stolen property within the meaning of section 410*.3. the child took the ornament and immediately after either pledged or sold it for five annas. 4. this being so, there was clearly a theft, as the child intended to cause wrongful gain to himself by taking the ornament......he (the accused) knew that it was stolen property, and convicted him under section 411, indian penal code.2. the first witness was, however, discharged under section 83 of the indian penal code, and the conviction is referred to us as bad in law, on the ground that, as there was no theft, the property in question was not stolen property within the meaning of section 410*.3. the child took the ornament and immediately after either pledged or sold it for five annas. this latter act of the child seems to us to show that, although he was over seven years and under twelve, yet that ho attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion within the meaning of section 83 of the indian penal code.4. this being so, there was.....
Judgment:

Kernan, J.

1. The first witness for the prosecution, a child of nine years of age, took a necklace valued at Rs. 2-8-0 from another boy who was wearing it. The accused received it from the child for five annas, and the Second-class Magistrate found that he (the accused) knew that it was stolen property, and convicted him under Section 411, Indian Penal Code.

2. The first witness was, however, discharged under Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, and the conviction is referred to us as bad in law, on the ground that, as there was no theft, the property in question was not stolen property within the meaning of Section 410*.

3. The child took the ornament and immediately after either pledged or sold it for five annas. This latter act of the child seems to us to show that, although he was over seven years and under twelve, yet that ho attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion within the meaning of Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. This being so, there was clearly a theft, as the child intended to cause wrongful gain to himself by taking the ornament.

5. We will therefore not interfere with the conviction.

* Stolen property

[Section 410: Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion or by robbery and property which has been criminally misappropriated, or in respect of which the offence of criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as stolen property.' But if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession there of, it then ceases to be stolen property.]


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //