IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY {(^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 949 AND 2505 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 949 OF 2Q1« Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment dated 26-09-2017 in S.C.No. 103/2015 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Vijayawada, Krishna District, Between: Kallepalli Prakash @ Nani, R/o.Plot No. 1682, New Rajivnagar Payakapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Apellant/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh., Rep.by its Public Prosector, High Court at Amaravati. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva for Appelant/A1 and Sri S Bala Mohan Ranga for Appelant/A2 Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Dr. Sastry Jandhyala Representative of PW.1- (Defacto Complainant) and Assisted Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi Assistant Public Prosecutor (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2505 OF 2018 Appealunder Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment and Sentence passed by the learned Session Judge, Mahila Court Vijayawada in SC No. 103 of 2015, dated 26-09-2017. Between: India Sai Prasanth, S/o. Phani Raj Kumar, Age: 22 years, R/o. D.No. 31-21-1, Duggirala Bala Rama Krishaiah Street, Machavaram, Vijayawada. ...Accused No.2/Appellant AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva for Appelant/A1 and Sri S Bala Mohan Ranga for Appelant/A2 Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Dr. Sastry Jandhyala Representative of PW.1- (Defacto Complainant) and Assisted Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi Assistant Public Prosecutor (AP) The Court made the following Common Judgment: APHC010166372018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 949/2018 Between: Kallepalli Prakash @ Nani ...APELLANT AND The State Of A P Counsel for the Apellant: 1.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent; 1. DR SASTRY JANDHYALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) ...RESPODENT APHC010678952018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2505/2018 Between: India Sai Prasanth ...APELLANT AND ...RESPODENT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Apellant: 1.S BALA MOHAN RANGA Counsel for the Respodent: 1. DR SASTRY JANDHYALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 HnNnilRABLF OR .lUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA f-plluilMAI APPEAL NOS.949 AND 2505 OF 2018 THE COMMON JUDGMENT. preferred challenging the validity and correctness of in S.C.No.103 of 2015 on the file of learned Sessions Mahila Court, Vijayawada, dated 26.09.2017. These appeals are the impugned judgment in _ Court, Mahila Sessions Judge The appellants herein are A-1 and A-2 respectively. 2. Since the impugned judgment in both the appeals is one and the same, this Court is inclined to pass a common judgment. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the .Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the appellant/A2, behalf of PW.I-De under M.Os.1 to 4 and assisted 3. appellant/AI, Sri S Mr.Dr.Sastry Jandhyala, learned counsel represented on facto complainant claimed property Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. the deceased Pedamallu Venkata It is a peculiar case where Lakshmamma died on son, daughter-in-law the funeral ceremony and P.Ws.5 to 7 are the neighbours of the vicinity, all the death of the deceased is due to natural 4. 03.08.2014, at her residence. P.Ws.1 to 3, who are her and grandson, respectively and P.W.4 is who performed under the impression that were police unearthed the story of the death of the deceased have arrested A1 and A2 relating to Crime No.244 causes. While so, the on 18.11.2014, when they 3 of 2014 of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada. It is further stated that while recording the confession statement of A1 and A2, in the presence of mediators in the said crime, the accused also confessed about committing murder and robbed the gold jewels of the deceased old lady on 03.08.2014. That is how the crime in the present case as Crime No.409 of 2014 registered basing on the mediator report. The alleged information said to have been collected from the accused leading to discovery of the house of the deceased and further let the police party to Manappuram Finance Company, where M.Os.1 to 4 were seized by the police, prosecution that during the course of investigation, Ex.P2-Two receipts acknowledging the pledge of the gold articles by A2 in Manappuram Finance Company, Gunadala. The prosecution further alleged that A1 got pledged the gold articles M.Os.3 and 4 through A2 and also through one Lakshmi Priyanka, who testified as P.W.1. The A1 after securing the amount from pledging the gold articles, he purchased an Auto in the name of his wife Sindhura from one Rama Rao on monthly installment basis® Rs.8,000/- each month for 26 months. It is further stated that A1 paid two installments and stopped paying such installments and finally they have sold away the Auto which stands in the name of his wife Sindhura through one Vasantha Rao, who was examined as P.W.9 in the case vide Agreement-Ex.P3. M.0.6 is the Auto which was seized from the said Vasantha Rao, M.0.5 is the motor bike, on which A1 and A2 were traced by the police on 18.11.2014. Investigating Officer-P.W.14 visited the scene of offence, observed the scene was It is further case of the The 4 in the presence of mediators and also seized the material objects in the presence of mediators under respective Panchanamas. After concluding investigation, he filed a report against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 449, 120B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”). On appearance of the Accused 1 and 2 before the trial Court, the copies 5. of the documents were furnished to them. The learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 449 r/w 34, 302 r/w 34, 404 and 411 IPC. The P.Ws.1 to 15 were the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.P1 to PI3 were the documents marked. Ex.DI is the contradiction elicited in the evidence of P.W.10. The M.Os.1 to 6 were the material objects placed before the Court. After completing the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”). They have denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record, after hearing learned counsels on both sides, found A1 and A2 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 404 and 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC and also sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years 6. 5 each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. Having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them, A1 and A2 preferred the above appeals challenging the validity of the impugned judgment on facts and law. 7. Considering the submissions made, now the points that would emerge for determination in the present appeals are: Whether the prosecution has proved that A1 and A2 dishonestly misappropriated the property possessed by the deceased person by name Pedamallu Venkata Lakshmamma at the time of her death? 8. (i) (ii) Whether the prosecution has proved that A1 and A2 dishonestly received or retained the stolen property having knowledge that it is a stolen property? Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 404 and 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? (iii) 9. Learned counsel for the accused No.1 would submit that the case of the prosecution completely rests on circumstantial evidence. Such being the case, there cannot be any missing link to connect the accused to the crime in the present case. Except the oral evidence of P.Ws.8 and 10 to the effect that A1 got pledged the gold articles with Manappuram Finance Company, nothing % has been placed on record in proof of pledging such articles by A1. Learned counsel would further submit that in the case of A2, the prosecution is able to place on record Ex.P2 consists two receipts, but failed to seize any such receipts either from P.W.8, P.W.10 or even from the company, counsel would further submit that the case of the prosecution making allegations against A1 that he got pledged the gold articles through his wife’s friend Lakshmi Priyanka and with that amount, purchased Auto and sold away that Auto, is highly improbable. In case of missing of such a link to connect the accused to the crime, the conviction and consequential sentence passed against the accused No.1 is not sustainable on facts and law. Learned Learned counsel for accused No.2 would submit that by this time accused No.2 had completed the sentence passed against him. counsel would further submit that when the Court disbelieved the case of the prosecution that they have committed the murder of the deceased old lady by pressing her throat and robbed her gold jewelry. But, at the same time, the Court believed the story to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC is not sustainable under law. 10. Learned Learned counsel representing on behalf of the de-facto complainant, would submit that they have not lodged any case against anyone under the 11. impression that the death of the deceased is a natural one and it is intervened Learned counsel would further submit that they have by someone else, nothing to do with the case. But it is their grievance that their articles were seized by the police in connection with the crime and they have identified their conducted by P.W.12 and they are such articles being legal articles in Test Identification Parade permanent custody of entitled to have representatives of the deceased. Prosecutor would submit that though the case Learned Assistant Public circumstantial evidence, the for the offence punishable under Section 12. learned Judge rightly acquitted A1 and 302 IPC, but rightly convicted 404 and 411 IPC. Learned rests on A2 for the offences punishable under Sections them Assistant Public Prosecutor raise any point in the appeal which goes convict them for the offences The prosecution by examining all material documents offences punishable under Sections reasonable doubt. There is the trial Court. Learned Assistant Public would further submit that A1 and A2 could not to the root of the prosecution case to punishable under Sections 404 and 411 IPC. relevant witnesses and by placing the successfully proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for 404 and 411 IPC beyond all the nothing to interfere in the impugned judgment of Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of these two appeals. appeal under Sec. 374(2) of in Amar Sardar vs. State The scope of this Court while hearing an Cr.P.C. is explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 13. of West Bengal (SLP (CRL.) No. 14976/2024) as follows: ,.j independent application of mind in criminal appeal against conviction. It is the court to independently evaluate the There shall be deciding the duty of an appellate evidence presented and determine whether such evidence is credibie. Even if the evidence is deemed reliable, the High Court must further assess whether the prosecution 8 has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court though being an appellate Court is akin to a Trial Court, must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution's case is substantially true and that the guilt of the accused has been conclusively proven while considering an appeal against a conviction. ” This Court has perused the material on record. This Court feels it is not to refer the entire oral or documentary evidence on record. But this 14. necessary Court will refer them as and when necessary to the extent required in the Judgment. As rightly placed by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is a peculiar case where an old woman, who was residing alone in the house was found dead in the evening hours on 03.08.2014, by her immediate neighbors. They have informed to her son and daughter-in-law. They rushed to the The P.W.4 conducted funeral ceremony and house and found her dead. P.Ws.5 to 7, who are the neighbors, they have also attended. The P.Ws.1 to 7 never suspected it be a suspicious death. Be that as it may, on 18.11.2014, the police intercepted A1 and A2 relating to another crime i.e. Crime No.244 of 2014 of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada, while examining the accused relating to the said crime, the present story has emanated from the information collected by the police from the accused leading to discovery of house of this old woman. The evidence of the Investigating Officer is to the effect that M.Os.1 to 4 were also traced by virtue of the information which was given by the accused and they were seized and marked as M.Os.1 to 4 before the Court and that a case has been registered as Crime No.409 of 2014 after three months after the death of the old lady. It is surprising to observe that P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the son, daughter- in-law and grandson of the deceased also did not suspect the death of the deceased though the gold ornaments of the deceased were found missing. To justify their inaction in not reporting to the police even for missing of the gold ornaments from the body of the deceased, they testified before the Court that they thought the deceased woman might have kept the gold ornaments somewhere hidden. Be that as it may, as rightly pointed out by learned 15. counsel for accused No.2 to record the conviction under Section 404 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused dishonestly misappropriated the The trial Court after property of the deceased at the time of her death, thorough enquiry in the trial and after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Such being the case, in the absence of any positive evidence, to believe the version of the prosecution about the presence of the accused at the time of death of the deceased, the question of dishonestly misappropriating the property of the deceased at the time of her death, does not arise. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is to the effect that on 03.08.2014, on coming to know about the death of the deceased, they rushed to the house, after that they performed the funeral rites of the old lady by cremating the body. Thereafter, the police have come to their house along with the accused and they were taken to P.W.12, where they have identified the gold articles, which are M.Os.1 to 4. Their evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to connect the accused for the offence punishable 10 % under Section 404 IPC. The fact remains that M.Os.1 to 4 were traced and seized by the Investigating Officer and the information which was given by the accused in the presence of mediators which leads to discovery of such ornaments. The prosecution says, on the information given by A2, the place of death of the deceased is traced. According to A2, he has pledged the gold articles and secured money. Basing on his information, they have visited the Manappuram Finance Company, where they have secured Ex.P2-pledged receipts apart from seizure of M.Os.1 and 2. A fair look at Ex.P2, would show that it consists two receipts in the 16. name of A2. The articles are one gold chain, ear studs-2, bangles-4, in total seven gold articles were pledged by A2 on 04.08.2014 i.e. immediately after the death of the deceased old lady. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.12, P.W.8, P.W.11 coupled with Ex.P2, Ex.P10-relevant portion in the mediators report, Ex.PII-relevant portion in the mediators report, would strengthen the case of the prosecution that these articles were in the possession of accused No.2. In the absence of any explanation from accused No.2 to justify his possession over such articles, the learned trial Judge rightly convicted the accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. discussion regarding accused No.2, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section In the light of the 404 IPC is not sustainable and it is set aside and the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC against A2 is sustainable on facts and law. 11 In that view, the impugned judgment to that extent is confirmed by this Court in the appeal. 17. Coming to the case of A1, it is the case of the prosecution that A1 got pledged the articles through his wife’s friend Lakshmi Priyanka. Of course, evidence of said Lakshmi Priyanka is very much available on record. Said P.W.10 testified before the Court that she has pledged 18. the Lakshmi Priyanka as M.Os.3 and 4 and obtained Rs.79,300/- amount from Manappuram Finance the request of A1 and his wife on 25.09.2014. A fair look at Ex.P2-two receipts would reveal that on the very same day on 04.08.2014, the Company on articles were pledged by A2. apposite to discuss the nature and validity of circumstantial criminal trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra{^9S4 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 19. Here it is evidence in a 88) held as follows; noted here that this Court indicated that the shouid' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade &Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made. “It may be circumstances concerned 'must or (1) Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. 12 % (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to they should not be explainable on any other say. hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. ” (emphasis supplied) 20. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Nassar V. State Of Kerala & Anr. (2025 INSC 35) while reiterating the settled position that in a case ofcircumstantial evidence, the following points were enunciated in detail; “30. We deem it essential to enunciate the principles that courtsmust adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as follows: (i). The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness mustbe meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked. (ii). Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on aninference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated. 13 'iP (Hi). Each of the links of incriminating circumstantiai evidence shouid be meticulousiy examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. (iv). The judgment must comprehensiveiy eiucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conciusion was iogicaiiy derived from the evidence, it shouid expiicitiy articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt. (v). The judgment must reflect that the finding of guiit, if any, has been reached after a proper and carefui evaiuation of circumstances in order todetermine whether they are compatiblewith any other reasonable hypothesis. ” (emphasis supplied) 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court inKarakkattu Muhammed Basheer v.The State of Kerala {[2024] 11 S.C.R. 498)while dealing with the sustainability of order of conviction in cases where the case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, it has been observed as follows; “11 .Thereafter, the above principies have been reiterated in the subsequent judgments of this Court and hoid the fieid tili date. Thus, these basic established principies can be summarized in the foiiowing terms that the chain of events needs to be so estabiished that the court has no option but to come to one and only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused person. If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in the sequence of events, the benefit thereof shouid flow to the accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the fact that it is very strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. The chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion that is the 14 guilt of the accused. Even in the case of a conviction where in appeal the chain of evidence is found to be not complete or the courts could reach to any another hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, the accused person must be given the benefit of doubt which obviously would lead to his acquittal. Meaning thereby, when there is a missing link, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded. In other words, the onus on the prosecution is to produce such evidence which conclusively establishes the truth and the only truth with regard to guilt of an accused for the charges framed against him or her, and such evidence should establish a chain of events so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused. ” an (emphasis supplied) Coming to the present case, to support the evidence of P.W.10, P.W.8, who is the person from Manappuram Finance Company also stated before the Court that on 25.09.2014, this P.W.10 pledged four bangles and maatees and obtained Rs.79,300/-. P.W.8 further says that on 27.11.2014, police came to their office along with receipt issued to Priyanka Lakshmi dated 25.09.2014. Hence, on the part of the prosecution for non-filing such receipt which is deposed by P.W.8 would probablise the version of accused No.1 that he was shown as accused in the present case simply on the count that he was arrested relating to another crime. Be that as it may, a cursory look at M.Os.1 to 4, they are two rows of Nanthadu, ear studs, mateelu, bangles-8 in number. The number of articles vide M.Os.1 to 4 is not matching with Ex.P2. Even according to P.W.8, a receipt was there. It is a company. Without any paper, they cannot take the gold articles informally from anyone and extend finance to them, in the absence of such crucial evidence placed before the Court, the of the prosecution against A2 becomes wholly circumstantial and the 22. case 0 15 punishable under Section 404 IPC or conviction of A2 either for the offence under Section 411 IPC Is not sustainable. The confession that A1 secured of his wife, his wife sold away that Auto amount, purchased Auto in the name Vasantha Rao-P.W.9 under an agreement-Ex.PS, have nothing to do in to one of M.Os.3 and 4 at the instance of A1. the absence of any proof of recovery In the light of aforementioned premise, the Criminal Appeal No.949 of allowed and impugned judgment is set aside 4 to the P.W.1 by following due process. 23, The Trial Court is 2018 is The directed to release M.Os.1 to Criminal Appeal No.2505 of 2018 is partly allowed setting aside the impugned The rest of the impugned judgment punishable under Section 411 IPC Is upheld. judgment relating to Section 404 IPC convicting the A2 for the offence , miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand As a sequel thereto closed. ciH/ F KAMESWARA RAO ®''' jSint registrar //true copy// SECTION OFFICER To, Krishna District. , Mahila Court, Vijayawada Metropolitan Magistrate: Vijayawada 1 The Sessions Judge 2. The 111 Additional Chief District. , Krishna District Jail, Krishna District. Suryaraopet Police Station, Krishna Superintendent, Vijayawada 4 The Station House Officer, District. 5. OneCCto 6. One CC to Sri DR Sastry 3. The Gudiseva Advocate [OPUC] Jandhyala Advocate [OPUCj Sri Narasimha Rao 7. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 9. Three CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.949 & 2505 of 2018 Ife 0 1 APR 2025 a Current Section CRLA.No.949 of 2018 IS ALLOWED CRLA.No. 2505 of 2018 IS ALLOWED IN PART