Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 689
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.SWAROOP REDDY
MOHAMMAD KHASIM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF A. P. - Respondent
Decided On : 05/18/2007
Criminal Appeal 937 Of 2005
Headnote:
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120 (B), 397 and 412 – Conspiracy – Investigation – Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity – Appeal against conviction – Contention of prosecution is that Rammohan Reddy absconding accused met A-1 in some political gathering and gave an idea of committing robberies etc. , thereafter, they hatched a plan – The prosecution predominently depends on the alleged telephonic conversations between A-1 and rammohan Reddy for the offence of conspiracy – Trial Judge on the same basis found the accused guilty under Section 120 B ipc apart from the circumstances of recovery of money, the movements of A-1 around the shop on the date of incident – Accused No. 1 he had an open site at pothinamallayyapalem – He also had a residence at East Point Colony, visakhapatnam in Eswaras Gurupati residency, Flat No. 3, where he was keeping his second wife – He had some political and trade union activities. Accused No. 9 Koribilli Suresh is resident of subashnagar, Visakhapatnam and his wife is a Corporator in Visakhapatnam Municipal corporation – Accused Nos. 1 and 9 are close associates – Whether there was any evidence to prove the conspiracy against the accused – Held, It is his contention that Rs. 30,000/- belonged to him, about which he did not specifically speak in his deposition as he stated that "police arrested me on 12-3-2002 du ring Sivarathri day, police of Visakhapatnam came to my village and took me into custody, and also collected rs. 30,000/- from me," his statement that rs. 30,000/- was collected from him shows that the police recovered Rs. 30,000/- from him is true – Recoveries from A-1, A-2 and a-9 can be said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt – Court inclined to give benefit of doubt to A-3 to A-8 with regard to the recoveries, as their case is different from A-1, a-2 and A-9, who, almost, admitted the recoveries and explanation they tried to give with regard to amounts recovered from them, is found to be totally unacceptable – AS A-2 is convicted for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC only, as there is no evidence on record to show that the offence undersection395 IPC was constituted, the finding of the trial Court holding A-1, A-2 and A-9 and other accused who are now being acquitted, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC is not in order, as section 412 IPC is attracted only in case there was dacoity – Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2005 is allowed.
( 2 ) THE convictions and sentences imposed on the accused are as under:
Accused Charge Conviction Sentence Accused Nos. 1 to 10 Under Section Accused Nos. A-1 to A-9 are sentenced to 1 to 9 found guilty. suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years each 120 (B) IPC
Accused No. 10 found not ?? guilty ? and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-each, in default of payment of fine to suffer
and ?? is acquitted of
the same. Found not guilty Acquitted.
simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
Accused Nos.
1 to 10 Accused No. 2 Under Section 395 IPC
Under Section
397 IPC
Accused Nos.
1 to 9
Under Section
412 IPC
Found guilty Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years.
The sentences passed against him shall run concurrently. Found guilty Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 /- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
The sentences passed against them shall run concurrently
( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:
Accused No. 1 Mandapati Surya Venkata krishnam Raju alias Krishnam Raju alias m. S. V. K. Raju is resident of Visalakshinagar of Visakhapatnam City. He had an open site at pothinamallayyapalem. He also had a residence at East Point Colony, visakhapatnam in Eswaras Gurupati residency, Flat No. 3, where he was keeping his second wife Mandapati Neelaveni. He had some political and trade union activities. Accused No. 9 Koribilli Suresh is resident of subashnagar, Visakhapatnam and his wife is a Corporator in Visakhapatnam Municipal corporation. Accused Nos. 1 and 9 are close associates.
ii) One Madireddy Rama Mohana Reddy alias Ramu, son of Gali Reddy (P. W. 23) is resident of Banaganapalli village of Kurnool district. He developed acquaintance with accused No. 1 during political activities and the said Rama Mohana Reddy told accused no. 1 that he was maintaining hired goondas and committing offences like dacoities and murders and he is ready to assist him in case of necessity. After his association with Rama mohana Reddy, accused No. 1 developed idea of robbing rich business people and contacted Rama Mohana Reddy with regard to the same. Later Rama Mohana Reddy came along with his men accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10, Fakheer Basha alias Chiplai, vadde Peddanna, Vedde Subbarayudu, karanam Rajasekhar Rao alias Sekhar and alakuntla Subbaraidu respectively, in his tata sumo vehicle to Vizag where accused No. 1 arranged for their stay at his shed at pothinamallayyapalem. The vehicle in which they came developed some mechanical problem and accused No. 1 sent it to balaji Automobiles at Adarsanagar, visakhapatnams and entrusted the work to p. Ws. 15 and 16, Senapati Surya Rao and tekimudi Raju, for repairs and painting. While these people were staying at the shed of accused No. 1, his watchman Yamala raminaidu alias Ramu, P. W. 14, looked after their arrangements. Accused No. 1 arranged two cars and instructed the drivers to take rama Mohana Reddy and accused Nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 10 around the town and show important business places to them. After staying for two days at Vizag, Rama Mohana Reddy left along with his men leaving accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the shed of Accused No. 1. Before going, he suggested that targeting Vaibhav Jewellery shop would be useful and promised to return to vizag with his associates and as promised he came back to Vizag along with accused nos. 4, 5, 6 and 10 on 5-2-2002 and stayed at the shed of accused
