SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, SUBBA REDDY SATTI, JJ.
Potlacheruvu Gangadhara Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State Of AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad – Respondent 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1807, 1953, 2683 of 2018 and 266 of 2021
Decided On : 06-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ammaji Nettem, Surepalli Madhava Rao, D. Kodandarami Reddy, P. S. P. Suresh Kumar
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)

Conviction for serious crimes cannot solely rely on the recovery of stolen property, especially when such recovery occurs long after the alleged commission of the offense, without corroborative evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 r/w 34, 379 r/w 34, and 411 - Conviction and sentencing of accused for murder and theft arising from a Sessions Case - Evidence based solely on circumstantial matters; prosecution failed to demonstrate any direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants with the crimes; recovery of goats after significant delay deemed insufficient. (Paras 18, 20, 22, 23)

(B) Evidentiary standards in criminal law - Must be beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on recovery alone insufficient for conviction not complemented by corroborative evidence. (Paras 17, 21)

Facts of the case:
The accused were charged with murdering Billa Mowlali and stealing goats. They were found guilty based largely on circumstantial evidence, primarily recovery of property alleged to belong to the deceased after several months. Prosecution witnesses were largely uncooperative. Convictions varied across the accused. The prosecution's case was primarily circumstantial and lacked solid evidence connecting the accused to the crime.

Findings of Court:
Only circumstantial evidence presented was the recovery of goats, which was not timely and failed to establish consistent connection to the crime. Convictions for murder and theft were set aside; conviction under Section 411 IPC was upheld based on sufficient evidence of possession of stolen goods.

Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence was adequate to uphold a conviction for murder and theft; the validity of evidence concerning property recovery after a lengthy delay.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that convictions must rest on strong evidence beyond mere recovery of stolen items absent further corroborative proof, especially where significant delays exist in the recovery process, and the defense's failure to cross-examine does not validate the prosecution's claims.

Result: Appeals allowed for some appellants, with acquittals for murder and theft charges; conviction under Section 411 IPC for one appellant confirmed.

Table of Content
1. charges against accused and trial process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. prosecution evidence and witnesses' testimonies. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of circumstantial evidence. (Para 8 , 16 , 19)
4. defense arguments questioning evidence against appellants. (Para 10 , 12 , 14)
5. legal standards regarding circumstantial evidence. (Para 18 , 21)
6. conclusion and orders regarding the appeals. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

K. Suresh Reddy, J.

Since all the four (4) Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, i.e., S.C. No.396 of 2014 on the file of the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Accused No.1 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1953 of 2018, Accused No.2 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2021, Accused No.3 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2683 of 2018, whereas, Accused No.4 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1807 of 2018, all arising out of the above Sessions Case. Accused Nos.1 to 4/appellants along with Accused No.5, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges.

i) First charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A5

ii) Second charge was under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A5.

iii) Third charge was under Section 411 IPC against A2

3. Substance of the charge is that on 20.5.2013 at about 11.30 a.m. all the five accused, in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of one Billa Mowlali (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') by hacking him with MO4-Axe and by strangulating him with MO.2-Towel and committed theft of twenty (20) goats, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC, 379 r/w 34 IPC and 411 IPC.

4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1 to A4 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. The learned Sessions Judge, further convicted A1 to A4 under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. The learned Sessions Judge, also convicted A2 under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A5 of both the charges.

5. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:

P.W.1 is father of the deceased, and P.W.2 is son-in-law of P.W.1. Both of them are residents of Janapadu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. P.W.1 was eking out his livelihood by grazing goats and was maintaining a flock of about 80 goats. P.W.1 and the deceased used to go to the forest area for grazing the goats. As usual, on 13.07.2011, P.W.1 along with the deceased went to Madigolla Gutta in Kunta Beedu forest area, situated on the eastern side of Janapadu Village. After spending some time there, P.W.1 returned to the village, leaving the deceased in the forest along with the goats. However, the deceased did not return home till 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, P.W.1 went back to the forest area and found a part of the goat flock, but the deceased was missing. P.W.1 then drove the goats to his house and informed his relatives about the missing of the deceased. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 3 made a search for the deceased. P.W.1 also noticed that twenty (20) goats were missing.

(ii) While so, on 15.07.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.4 found the dead body of the deceased at Madigolla Gutta in Kunta Beedu forest area, situated on the eastern side of Janapadu Village. On receipt of the said information through P.W.4, P.W.1, along

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top