The last seen theory requires minimal time gap and explanation of possession of stolen items for conviction.

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant- accused No.2 under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.,) aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 16.07.2012 (impugned Judgment) passed in S.C.No.182 of 2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sangareddy (for short ‘learned trial Court’).

02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned trial Court.

03. The brief facts of the case are as under:

Complainant (PW1) is the wife of Kammari Manohar Chari (hereinafter referred as ‘the deceased’). On 02.02.2012 at about 12:00 noon the deceased quarreled with the complainant and took away her gold pusthelathadu and left the house along with his friends i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereafter he did not return to home. Through villagers she came to know that one male dead body was found near Old Railway Quarters, Patancheru and she identified the dead person as his husband. She filed a complaint suspecting accused persons might have killed the deceased.

04. The Police, Patancheru registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) and took up investigation. After completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the said offences.

05. The learned trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and they denied the said charges. During the course of trial, to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2, prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and MOs.1 to 5. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

06. After considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record and on hearing both sides, the learned trial Court by way of impugned Judgment acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC and convicted them for the offence under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, accused No.2 has preferred this Criminal Appeal.

07. Heard Sri Manda Adam, learned counsel for appellant-accused No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. Perused the record.

08. Learned counsel for appellant-accused No.2 submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged offence and that all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses and PW7 is a stock witness for prosecution and his evidence cannot be believed and prayed this Court to allow this Criminal Appeal by set aside the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

09. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent submitted that the learned trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly convicted and sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 411 of IPC , for which no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Appeal.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the impugned Judgment passed by the learned trial Court, liable to be set aside?

P O I N T:

11. The learned trial Court, after considering the entire material on record, acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of IPC and at the same time, found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty for t