IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.650 OF 2013 DATE: 30.03.2026 Between:

Ryapani Ramulu … Appellant and The State of A.P., by the Public Prosecutor … Respondent :JUDGMENT:

This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant – accused No.2 against the judgment dated 19.07.2013 in Sessions Case No.1 of 2010, passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused herein, along with the other accused, committed dacoity in the house of the complainant on the night of 15/16.06.1999 at Rusumpally village. They took a jeep bearing No. AP 22 T 7683 on hire from LW8/Dasari Narsimulu and went to the house of LW1/Koninti Narsimlu Goud. They gained entry into the house by pretending that they were the police and intended to make a phone call. Since LW1 had a phone inside his house, he opened the door, and they gained entry into the house. They threatened the inmates of the house and, when they did not find any valuables, they snatched the gold rings from LW1 and his wife. They then took the shop keys from LW1, opened the kirana shop, and stole a gold chain and pusthelathadu from Kirana Shop, along with cash of Rs. 15,000/-. Thus, the accused are charged with the offence under Section 395 of IPC.

3. After following due procedure, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, and the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad heard the accused on the charges and conducted the trial.

4. During the trial, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked on behalf of the prosecution, whereas none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked.

5. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused No.2 – appellant guilty of the charge under Section 395 of IPC and accordingly convicted him and sentenced him to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month of simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred.

6. Heard the submissions of Sri C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence placed by the prosecution before the trial Court does not prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused are only three in number. Therefore, the offence does not amount to dacoity, but the trial Court has convicted the accused for dacoity, which is not justified. The ingredients of Section 395 of IPC are not satisfied even if the allegations are believed to be true. He further submitted that accused No.2 was not properly identified before the trial Court and that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) is vitiated, as the accused were shown to the LW1 prior to the parade. Hence, the procedure itself is vitiated and that the said identification cannot be taken into consideration. Further, the ornaments which were given in interim custody to the de facto complainant were not produced again before the Court for identification during the course of trial. In the absence of such identification, the offence of stealing gold ornaments cannot be said to be proved. Therefore, the trial Court has made an error in convicting the accused under Section 395 of IPC, hence, he prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence clearly reveals that three of the accused gained entry into the house of the LW1 while two others were guarding outs