Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
Godela Siva S/o Suryanarayana – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused No. 1 (A.1) in Sessions case No. 58 of 2009, on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), challenging the judgment, dated 14.09.2010, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the A.1/present appellant along with A.2 guilty of the charge under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) in alternative to Section 379 of I.P.C., convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the present appellant and A.2 not guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C. and accordingly, acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful A.1 with regard to the charge under Section 411 of I.P.C. filed the present Criminal Appeal.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake
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....
where the Test Identification of properties for the reason that in Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice as well as Clause 474 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, it is clearly mentioned that th....
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the accused's involvement as the receiver of stolen property beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under S....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial evidence cases, with each circumstance established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
