KARNAL SINGH UTTAM SINGH vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court held that the presumption from recent possession of stolen property under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is optional and can only be applied when no reasonable hypothesis other than guilt is available. The Court found that the appellant's explanation regarding his possession of the truck was reasonable and credible, as he was not named in the FIR and had provided a satisfactory account of his possession. Consequently, the conviction under Section 411 IPC was set aside due to the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.