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) 153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.SURESH REDDY, SUBBA REDDY SATTI, JJ.
Potlacheruvu Gangadhara Rao – Appellant 
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1807, 1953, 2683 of 2018, 266 of 2021
Decided On : 06-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ammaji Nettem

Circumstantial evidence, particularly delayed recovery, is insufficient to support convictions for murder and theft without direct linkage to the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 379, and 411 - Accused charged with murder and theft - Main accused convicted for murder and sentenced to life, while also convicted for theft; another accused convicted for possession of stolen property - Court found that circumstantial evidence, primarily recovery of stolen goats, was insufficient to uphold murder and theft convictions - Appeals allowed for murder and theft convictions, while upholding possession conviction. (Paras 4, 20, 22, 23)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Standard of Proof - The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of goats, which was established long after the incident - The court ruled that such recovery does not suffice to establish guilt for murder or theft. (Paras 10, 16, 18)

(C) Acquittal - Outcomes of appeals: Accused No.1, No.3, and No.4 acquitted of murder and theft charges, while conviction of Accused No.2 under possession confirmed. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
Five accused charged with the murder of the deceased, with prosecution claiming common intention and theft involved - Evidence included witness accounts, recovery of stolen goats, and lack of eyewitness testimonies. (Paras 3, 7, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court identified significant gaps in the prosecution’s evidence to affirm guilt, stressing that mere recovery of goods long after the alleged crime cannot sustain a conviction for murder and theft. (Paras 20, 21)

Issues: The critical issues involved were the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for murder and theft, and the credibility of recovery of property. (Paras 10, 16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strong evidence beyond mere recovery for conviction; circumstantial evidence must firmly connect accused to the crime, especially when a considerable time lapse occurs. (Paras 18, 20, 21)

Result: Appeals allowed. Convictions and sentences set aside for certain accused, but confirmed for possession. Acquittal of murder and theft charges.

Table of Content
1. charges against appellants established through facts. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments questioning evidence linking appellants to the crime. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court analysis of circumstantial evidence and legal standards. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. a conviction solely on recovery of property is unreliable. (Para 20 , 21)
5. final decisions on appeals and acquittals. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

K. SURESH REDDY, J.

1. 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 and 411 .

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 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 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 with his relatives,

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