Question

In the landmark case Wasim Khan v. State of Uttar

Q: Answer-In the landmark case Wasim Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985) and related Supreme Court judgments...

In Wasim Khan v. State of U.P. 1985 and subsequent case law on property crimes, the Supreme Court held that when murder and robbery are integral parts of the same criminal act, unexplained possession of stolen property serves as presumptive evidence. The principle, though originating in robber cases, extends to theft and dacoity a person found in possession of recently stolen property, without reasonable explanation, may be presumed guilty of the theft or robbery. However, this is presumptive evidence, not conclusive proof. The Court clarified that possession must be unexplained and recent, and it strengthens the case when combined with other evidence. This principle balances the presumption of innocence with the probative value of possession as circumstantial evidence in property crimes.

Pradesh (1985) and related Supreme Court judgments, the Court established principles regarding the admissibility of circumstantial evidence and possession of stolen property in robbery and dacoity cases. The Court held that: Which principle regarding unexplained possession of stolen property in robbery/dacoity cases was established?

A Possession of stolen property is irrelevant unless the prosecution provides a complete chain of eyewitness evidence.

B Unexplained possession of recently stolen property serves as presumptive evidence against the accused facing charges of theft or robbery, strengthening the prosecution's case when other evidence is present.

C Mere possession of stolen property automatically proves guilt without the need for any corroborating evidence.

D Possession of stolen property is admissible only if the accused confesses to the theft.

E Recent theft and possession are independent offences; possession cannot be used as evidence in a robbery or dacoity trial.

Practice Next