https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302912 Recovery of stolen ornaments was proved through the investigating officer and an independent panch witness, and the hostile testimony of another panch did not discredit the seizure. However, the recovery was made too long after the theft to attract a presumption of recent possession under section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act for sustaining convictions for dacoity and use of a deadly weapon. The proved possession supported an inference that the accused knew or had reason to believe the articles were stolen and dishonestly retained them, justifying conviction under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction was therefore altered and the sentence moderated to imprisonment already undergone with a fine and default imprisonment. en-us Thu, 27 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:48:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302912 Recovery of stolen ornaments was proved through the investigating officer and an independent panch witness, and the hostile testimony of another panch did not discredit the seizure. However, the recovery was made too long after the theft to attract a presumption of recent possession under section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act for sustaining convictions for dacoity and use of a deadly weapon. The proved possession supported an inference that the accused knew or had reason to believe the articles were stolen and dishonestly retained them, justifying conviction under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction was therefore altered and the sentence moderated to imprisonment already undergone with a fine and default imprisonment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302912