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
| 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,
Circumstantial evidence, particularly delayed recovery, is insufficient to support convictions for murder and theft without direct linkage to the accused.
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 evide....
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, leading to their acquittal.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroboration and the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and complete chain of proof establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely conjecture.
The need for concrete evidence to prove homicidal death and the importance of the Doctor's opinion in cases of circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of the accused for murder and theft was upheld based on established circumstantial evidence, confirming the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must create a complete and unbroken chain of proof to establish guilt; mere conjecture 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.