Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(AP) 1021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B V L N Chakravarthi, J.
The State Of A.P. Rep. By The Public Prosecutor - Appellant
Vs.
G Ramesh Babu S/o. Kalaiah Balija - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 2009
Decided On : 09-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Public Prosecutor (AP)
For the Respondent: Mullapudi Satyanarayana, Legal Aid

An appellate court will not interfere with an order of acquittal if the trial court’s view is plausible, particularly when the prosecution fails to facilitate the identification of recovered property by the complainant and fails to provide documentary proof of stolen items.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 448, 427, 379 read with 109 - Theft, Mischief, Trespass - Failure to conduct Test Identification Parade (TIP) of recovered property - Lack of identification of recovered items by the complainant or mediators - Absence of supporting documentation/invoices for stolen medicinal stock - Trial court findings based on evidence - Appellate Court interference - Scope of reversal in acquittal appeals - In the absence of identification or proof of ownership via invoices, the conviction is unsustainable while the acquittal of remaining accused is a possible view based on record. (Paras 21-23, 26)

Facts of the case:
The complainant was the tenant of a medical shop property. Following a lease dispute and a dismissed civil suit, the complainant found his shop lock broken and items missing. A criminal complaint was filed. Although some property was allegedly recovered from the accused, the prosecution failed to conduct a TIP, and the complainant did not identify the property as his during the trial, nor were invoices/bills produced to establish identity. The trial court acquitted the accused for most charges but convicted one accused under S. 379 IPC, releasing him under the Probation of Offenders Act. The State appealed the acquittal.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that in the absence of identification of the stolen property and failure to prove ownership through documentary evidence (invoices), the prosecution failed to link the accused to the alleged theft. The trial court's view was a possible one, and the appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse.

Issues: Whether the trial court's order of acquittal was unsustainable due to perversity or lack of evidence regarding the identity of stolen property.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution witnesses fail to identify the recovered property and no documentary evidence (invoices/bills) exists to identify stolen items, a conviction for theft cannot be sustained; furthermore, an appellate court cannot interfere with a trial court’s acquittal if it is a plausible view based on the evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

B V L N Chakravarthi, J.

Heard Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State/appellant and Sri Mullapudi Satyanarayana, learned legal aid counsel for the respondents/A1 to A3.

2. The appeal is preferred by the State challenging the order of acquittal dated 04.10.2007 delivered in C.C.No.876 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.

3. The learned Magistrate under the impugned judgment found the accused/A1 and A2 not guilty for the offence under Sections 448, 427 and Section 379 r/w 109 IPC, and accordingly acquitted them. However, the learned Magistrate found the accused/A3 guilty for the offence under Section 379 r/w 109 IPC, convicted him, and later, released him under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after due admonition. It appears that the case against the accused/A4 was split up and numbered as C.C.No.547 of 2007, as he was not available for trial.

4. Learned legal aid counsel for respondent/A3 would submit that no appeal was preferred by accused/A3 challenging the order of conviction recorded against him, as mentioned above.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arraigned before the learned Magistrate Court.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

6. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/A1 is the owner of a shop premises located at Kavali, Nellore District. PW-1 is the tenant. PW-1 running a medical shop in the said premises in the name and style as Bharathi Medicals. The lease was to expire on 31.03.2002. PW-1 requested the accused/A1 for renewal of the lease. The accused/A1 did not agree to renew the lease. Therefore, disputes arose between PW-1 and A1. Hence, PW-1 filed a suit before the competent Civil Court for permanent injunction to restrain the accused/A1 from evicting PW-1 except under due process of law.

7. On 22.06.2002, PW-1 as usual closed the shop in the night. He came to shop on the morning of 24.06.2002, as 23.06.2002 was Sunday. He found that the lock was broken and a new lock was put on to the shop. He also noticed some liquid, appearing to be syrup, coming out from the shop. He approached the police and intimated the above facts. He also approached the Civil Court with an application to appoint a Commissioner to break open the new lock. The Civil Court appointed a Commissioner. Therefore, the Commissioner visited the shop on 26.06.2002. He opened the lock and inspected the shop. The furniture and medicines worth of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) available in the shop were not found. Therefore, PW-1 presented a report-Ex.P1 to Sub- Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Nellore/PW-7. He registered Ex.P1 as a case in Crime No.50 of 2002 vide Ex.P7-FIR and submitted the original FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He took up the investigation, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence i.e., the shop, and prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P8. He also observed the scene of offence in the presence of PW-5 and another, vide Ex.P4 proceedings.

8. During the course of investigation, on 28.06.2002 at 5:30 AM, he arrested accused/A3 and A4 at Ongole Bus Stand in the presence of PW-6 and another and recorded their statements. The statements made by the accused/A3 and A4 disclosed that the stolen property in the case was kept in a house at Balaji Nagar, Nellore. Therefore, PW-7, along with mediators, visited Balaji Nagar, Nellore and seized property vide Ex.P6 proceedings. Later, he arrested accused/A1 on 22.07.2002. Accused/A2 surrendered before the Magistrate. The property seized was produced before the Magistrate, and it was returned to PW-1 for interim custody. After conclusion of the investigation, PW-7 laid report before the Magistrate.

9. The accused/A2 to A4 were charged for the offence under Sections 448 and 427 IPC. The accused/A1 to A4 were charged for the offence under Section 379 r/w 109 IPC. The accused denied the ch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(AP) 1021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIB V L N Chakravarthi, J.The State Of A.P. Rep. By The Public Prosecutor - AppellantVs.G Ramesh Babu S/o. Kalaiah Balija - RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 332 of 2009Decided On : 09-04-2026

An appellate court will not interfere with an order of acquittal if the trial court’s view is plausible, particularly when the prosecution fails to facilitate the identification of recovered property by the complainant and fails to provide documentary proof of stolen items.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B V L N Chakravarthi, J.
The State Of A.P. Rep. By The Public Prosecutor - Appellant
Vs.
G Ramesh Babu S/o. Kalaiah Balija - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 2009
Decided On : 09-04-2026