In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstances that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Failure to prove such a chain entitles the accused to an acquittal.

Appeal under Section 372 /374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal to this Honble Court against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole (before I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole) passed in S.C.No. 12 of 2015, dt.20-7-2018.

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 may be pleased to release the petitioners on bail by suspending the sentence passed in S.C.no. 12 of 2015 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, dated 20-07-2018, pending disposal of Criminal Appeal and pass

The Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)

1. All the three (3) accused in Sessions Case No.12 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges.

1. First Charge was under Section 302 IPC against A2

2. Second Charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A3.

3. Third Charge was under Section 379 IPC against A1 and A2

4. Fourth Charge was under Section 412 IPC against A3

2. Substance of the charge is that A1 to A3, in furtherance of their common intention to commit theft in the house of Avvaru Nageswaramma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), and in that process A1 and A2 trespassed into the house of the deceased on 02.02.2014 at about 8:00 P.m., while A3 stood watching outside the house and committed theft of gold ornaments (Mos.1. to 3), and, in the meanwhile, when the deceased woke up, A2, on the instigation of A1, beat the deceased with an iron rod, as a result she succumbed to injuries, and the accused escaped with MOs.1 to 3 – Jewellery and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 379 r/w Section 34 IPC and 412 IPC.

3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1 and A3 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months each. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted A1 to A3 under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. Both the substantive sentences against A1 to A3 were directed to run concurrently. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A3 of the charge under Section 412 IPC.

4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, briefly is as follows:-

(i) P.W.1 was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Bapatla Police Station on the date of incident. The deceased was none other than the mother of P.W.1. P.W.3 is brother-in-law of P.W.1, and P.W.4 is a distant relative of P.W.1. The deceased was residing alone in her house situated at Syndicate Weavers Colony, Epurupalem village.

(ii) On 29.01.2014, the deceased visited Repalle to a