When There Is a Duty to Speak, the Accused Cannot Enjoy Silence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 411 IPC

"Apprehension While Fleeing Is Arrest in Law — Section 27 Challenge Cannot Undo Conviction Based on Independent Evidence", In a significant pronouncement on the interplay between Section 27 of the Evidence Act, Section 313 CrPC, and the presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a), the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, by judgment and affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Subhendu Samanta upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, holding that possession of stolen motorcycles without any explanation attracts the statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The Court further clarified that where specific incriminating circumstances are put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, failure to respond permits the Court to draw an adverse inference.

The sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment, as modified by the Appellate Court, was maintained and the petitioner was directed to surrender within four weeks.

The case arose out of multiple complaints relating to motorcycle thefts registered in 2009 and 2010. During investigation, the police recovered as many as 26 motorcycles from the possession of the petitioner (A1) and co-accused. Three motorcycles formed the subject matter of C.C. No. 307 of 2010 before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

On 06.07.2010, the petitioner was apprehended near PedhaKaluva Bridge while allegedly attempting to flee upon noticing police personnel. Subsequent recoveries were effected and co-accused were arrested.

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment. The Appellate Court reduced the sentence to one year while affirming conviction. The petitioner approached the High Court in revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

Section 27 Evidence Act: Was the Accused in Custody?

The principal argument advanced by the petitioner was that the alleged confessional statement leading to recovery was inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act since he was not formally arrested at the time of making the statement. Reliance was placed upon Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 INSC 839).

The High Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation that both being “in the custody of a police officer” and being “accused of an offence” are indispensable prerequisites for Section 27 to apply.

However, Justice Samanta examined Section 46 CrPC and clarified that arrest is complete once a person is physically restrained or submits to custody. The Court observed that when the petitioner attempted to flee and was chased and apprehended by the police, the arrest stood completed in the eye of law.

Significantly, the Court held that the conviction was not founded on any confessional statement at all. No statement under Section 161 CrPC was marked as an exhibit. The Trial Court relied upon the independent testimony of PW4 and seizure of material objects.

The Court categorically held that “whether A1 has made statement before the police and on the basis of which stolen motorcycles were recovered is not a relevant question or deciding factor in recording conviction.” The judgment in Rajesh was distinguished on facts.

Silence Under Section 313 CrPC: A Shield or a Risk?

The second legal challenge centered around the petitioner’s silence during examination under Section 313 CrPC. The petitioner relied upon Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 17 SCC 401, where the Supreme Court had held that if material incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, silence cannot be used against him.

The High Court carefully perused the 313 statement and found that specific and pointed questions regarding possession of stolen motorcycles were put to the petitioner. The Court noted that the accused remained “mum” despite such questioning.

In a telling observation, the Court held, “When there is a duty to speak, accused cannot enjoy his silence.”

The High Court clarified that the right to silence is not absolute in the context of Section 313 CrPC. Where incriminating circumstances are clearly put to the accused and he fails to offer any explanation, the Court is entitled to consider such silence in evaluating the evidence.

The ruling in Manoj Kumar Soni was held inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

Presumption Under Section 114 Illustration (a)

The High Court invoked Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which permits the Court to presume that a person found in possession of stolen goods soon after theft is either the thief or a receiver of stolen property, unless he offers a reasonable explanation.

In the present case, 26 motorcycles were recovered and no explanation was offered regarding possession. The Court held that the presumption stood attracted and strengthened the prosecution case under Section 411 IPC.

Revisional Jurisdiction: No Re-Appreciation Without Perversity

Reiterating the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the Court observed that interference is warranted only when there is glaring illegality or perversity.

Finding none in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

The interim suspension of sentence was vacated and the petitioner was directed to surrender within four weeks.

The judgment serves as a reminder that unexplained possession of stolen property invites statutory presumption, that apprehension while fleeing amounts to arrest in law, and that silence under Section 313 CrPC cannot be invoked as a tactical refuge when specific incriminating circumstances are put to the accused.

Date of Decision: 25/02/2026