IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
K. Durga Rao Duraaiah Ganga Raju T. Durgaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.881 of 2010
Decided on : 04-07-2023
I.P.C. - Criminal Appeal - Sections 302, 379, 411 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the accused for possession of stolen cash, disbelieving the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. and convicting the accused under Section 411 of I.P.C. The court found the accused guilty of possession of stolen cash beyond reasonable doubt, based on the recovery of the cash and the evidence of the deceased's daughter. The judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge was confirmed on appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The accused faced trial for charges under Section 302 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 but found guilty of the charge under Section 411 of I.P.C. The case arose from an incident where the accused attacked the deceased and decamped with stolen cash.
Finding of the Court:
The court disbelieved the case of the prosecution under Section 302 of I.P.C. but found the accused guilty of possession of stolen cash under Section 411 of I.P.C. based on the recovery of the cash and the evidence of the deceased's daughter.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution proved that the accused was found in possession of stolen cash of Rs.3,50,000 beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the prosecution proved the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt based on the recovery of the cash and the evidence of the deceased's daughter.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 411 of I.P.C. was confirmed.
ORDER :
The judgment, dated 21.06.2010 in Sessions Case No.265 of 2009, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (“Sessions Judge” for short) is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal by the unsuccessful accused. The accused before the learned Sessions Judge faced trial for the charges under Section 302 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge extended an order of acquittal in favour of the accused insofar as the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned, but found him guilty of the charge under Section 411 of I.P.C., convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the said judgment.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Court below for the sake of the convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.265 of 2009 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.11 of 2009 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru, relating to Crime No.81 of 2008 of Mandapeta Rural Police Station.
4. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Mandapeta Circle, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.81 of 2008 of Mandapeta Rural Police Station, alleging the offences under Sections 302 of I.P.C. and 379 of I.P.C. in alternative under Section 411 of I.P.C. (alternative to Section 379 of I.P.C.).
5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set-out in the charge sheet is as follows:
(i) The accused is resident of Vemulapalli Village, H/o Dwarapudi, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. He is a desperate character. One Sangisetti Nageswara Rao @ Nagaiah is the deceased (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”).
(ii) L.W.1-Penumaka Nageswara Rao @ Nagesh is working as farm servant under the deceased. He and his family members used to stay in the fields itself in the shed. The deceased is the Vice President of PACS of the village. They got lands in Vyra Village of Khammam District and later they sold away.
(iii) During the night of 10.07.2008 at 10.15 p.m., the deceased kept the cash of Rs.3,50,000/- in the newspaper bundle and kept the bundle in the plastic wire basket and told his daughter L.W.5-Sangisetti Lakshmi Durga that he would go out and come soon. Between 10-30 and 10-45 p.m., the deceased reached his fields. On noticing the deceased, the accused asked him whether he brought the cash. The deceased said that he brought the cash and asked the accused to show the gold. On the pretext of showing the gold, the accused picked up the knife from the rice bag which he brought there and hacked the deceased on the back of his neck four or five times. The deceased fell down crying. L.W.1 heard the cries of the deceased from the drumstick tree side and he went there. He found the deceased with bleeding injuries in a pool of blood. The deceased told him that the accused informed to him that he got some gold and that he would give it for a cheaper rate, as such, he brought the cash of Rs.3,50,000/- to the fields where the accused came there, hacked him with knife and committed theft of cash and escaped. Then, L.W.1 informed the incident to L.W.3-Sangisetti Narayudu. L.W.3 and L.W.7-Koppisetti Satyanarayana came to the fields. By then, L.W.2-Kundrapu Appa Rao and Kotcherla Syamala also came there. The deceased told to L.W.2, L.W.3, L.W.7 and Kotcherla Styamala that the accused called him to offer gold and when he brought Rs.5,00,000/-, the accused hacked him with knife on his neck, back and right hand and committed theft of cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and escaped. The deceased was shifted in
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the accused's possession of stolen cash beyond reasonable doubt to establish the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C....
In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events connecting th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the conviction and sentence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code based on the consistent and convincing evidence of posses....
Circumstantial evidence must be complete and conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasona....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the inadmissibility of confessions, and the need to connect recovered material obje....
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.