Home >> Current Issues
Volume No - 17 Issue No - 20
Where the fundamental evidence is not available and the law leans in appellantâ€™s favour, notwithstanding the concurrent finding, the Court has to exercise corrective jurisdiction as the circumstances justify. The exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 is found to be merited to do justice to the appellant who was held to be guilty, without the requisite evidence to establish his mens rea in the crime. In these circumstances where it is not established that the appellant dishonestly received stolen property with the knowledge and belief that the goods found in his possession were stolen, the conviction of the appellant under Section 411 IPC, in our view, cannot be sustained. Therefore, applying the test in Trimbak [supra], it must be held that the appellant was erroneously convicted. Therefore, we order the acquittal of the appellant. The appeal stands allowed with this order.