APHC010508492012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 126/2012 Between:

1. G ANGOLU WILSON KUMAR, W.G.DISTRICT AND ANOTHER, S/O.

SUGUNA RAO R/O. OPP: ONGC, NARASAPURAM, W.G.DISTRICT.

2. C HILAKAPATI JOSEPH, S/O. TATAIAH ABRAHAM DRIVER R/O.

28TH WARD, RUSTUMBADA, NARASAPURAM, W.G.DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE SHO INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY POLICE RAJAHMUNDRY BYPP, SHO, Inspector of Railway Police, Rajahmundry, Vijayawada, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present the above criminal revision case questioning the judgment in Crl.A.No. 95 of 2010 dated 20-01-2011 on the file of the Court of the Sessions, Metropolitan Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District (Metropolitan Sessions Judge) in confirming the judgment in C.C.No. 202 of 2007 dated 11-05-2010 on the file of the court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 171 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No. 202 of 2007 dated 11-05-2010 on the file of the court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 196 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail by suspending the operation of the Judgment passed in CrlA.No.95/2010 dt. 20-01-2011 on the file of the court of the Sessions, Metropolitan Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District [Metropolitan Sessions Judge] in confirming the judgment in C.C.No.202/2007 dt. 11-05- 2010 on the file of the court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above CrlRC and pass.

..

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following Order:

Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned appellate Court, wherein and whereunder both the learned Courts below found the present petitioners being A1and A2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued basically on two points, firstly, there are prosecution witnesses namely PW.7 and PW.8, mediators, who were allegedly present at the time of the arrest of the accused persons. PW.7 turned hostile, PW.8, though supported the prosecution case but it would be revealed that PW.8 is a stock witness of the police. He deposed in favour of the prosecution in other two cases. Thus, his evidence cannot be believed. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of the confessions made by the petitioners in presence of PW.8, the conviction of present petitioners is not maintainable. She submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in dealing with similar issue in Sd.SHabuddin vs. State of Telangana in Crl.A.No.3605 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025 has held that the conviction under Section 411 IPC without any evidence except solitary confessionary statement is not maintainable.

3. Secondly, the petitioners themselves not required to explain their possession of huge amount of money but the prosecution has failed