CRLRC/316/2009 of VUYYALA EDUKONDALU AND ANOTHER, Vs THE STATE OF A.P., REP BY PP., AND ANOTHER, on 20 September 2026

1. VUYYALA EDUKONDALU AND ANOTHER,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, MUKKELLAPADU VILLAGE, NUZENDLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.(A-1)

2. ITTA RAMAMURTHY,, S/O. NAGAIAH, MUKKELLAPADU VILLAGE, NUZENDLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.(A-2)

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP AND ANOTHER, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.

2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VINUKONDA P.S., GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment in Crl.A.No.515/2006 dt.08.10.2007 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur which was filed against the judgment in S.C.No.372 of 2005 of the learned Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet the petitioners herein beg to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 405 OF 2009 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 to condone the delay of 413 days in filing the Revision Case IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 424 OF 2009

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 to suspend the conviction in Crl.A.No.515/2006 dt.08.10.2007 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur which was filed against the judgment in S.C.No.372 of 2005 of the learned Addl. Asst Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet and enlarge the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioners:

1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order:

1. Instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the judgment dt.08.10.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.515 of 2006 by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellate court’) confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’) in S.C. No.372 of 2005, dt.13.12.2006.

2. The petitioners were arrayed as A.1 and A.2 and were charged before learned trial court under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). However, after trial, trial court found them guilty for offence under section 412 of I.P.C. as material objects are found and recovered from the possession of A.1, A.2 and A.4. They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs.100/- each. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal is preferred. Learned appellate court has also confirmed the conviction and sentence against

A.1 and A.2, while acquitting A.4, however modified sentence by reducing it from five years rigorous imprisonment to three years. Hence, the petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 preferred this instant criminal revision case.

3. PROSECUTION CASE, IN BRIEF, AS FOLLOWS:

3.1. On 28.04.2001, between 8.00 p.m. and 8.30 p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 6151 from Vinukonda to Kothanagireddipalli. When they reached the scene of the offence, which is about two kilometres away from Chintalacheruvu Village, six unknown persons waylaid them by stopping the motorcycle. The said unknown offenders robbed a gold ring and a Time Gold Company wristwatch from P.W.1. They also robbed cash of Rs.2,500/- from P.W.2 and went away.

3.2. P.W.1 lodged a report with the police. On the basis of such report, crime No.29 of 2001 under Section 395 of I.P.C. was registered. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet. During the course of investigation, it was alleged by the investigating agency that they seized the material objects from the possession of A.1 to A.4 in the presence of witnesses, namely, P.Ws.3 and 5.

3.3. Learned trial court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge under Section 395 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.4. However, observed that, since the material objects were seized from the possession of accused, they were guilty of the offence under Section 412 of I.P.C.

4. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observations of learned trial court as well as learned appellate court are illegal and improper. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 395 of I.P.C. however, learned trial court convicted the petitioners under Section 412 of I.P.C. Learned counsel specifically submitted that P.Ws.3 and 5 were cited as seizure witnesses for the recovery of material objects from A.1 to A.4, they were declared as hostile by learned trial court.

4.2. Moreover, though P.Ws.4 and 5 specifically stated that their signatures appearing on the mediators report were obtained at the police station, they had not seen anything regarding the seizure of the property from the accused persons. However, learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the evidence of Investigating Officer (P.W.8) recorded the order of conviction. Learned trial court found that there was no material against A.4 and, thereby, A.4 was acquitted.

5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE: 5.1 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the findings recorded by learned trial court and learned appellate court are based on the evidence available on record and do not warrant any interference. 5.2 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the prosecution has established the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 412 of I.P.C. Though P.Ws.4 and 5, the mediators for the recovery, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile, their evidence cannot result in rejection of the entire prosecution case.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the judgment of learned trial court and learned appellate court.

7. OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT: 7.1 I have perused the observations of learned trial court and also perused paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the judgment of learned trial court, from which it appears that though P.Ws.3 and 5 were cited as mediators, they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Though they admitted their signatures on the mediatornama, they specifically stated that their signatures were obtained by the police at the police station and that, in their presence, the police did not seize any property from the accused persons. However, P.W.8, being the Investigating Officer, supported the prosecution case by stating that the material objects were seized from the possession of A.1, A.2 and A.4. 7.2 On a thorough perusal of entire observations of learned trial court and learned appellate court, it appears they recorded conviction on basis of investigating officer. To prove a charge under Section 412 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to unequivocally prove that the material objects, i.e., the stolen articles, were seized from the possession of the accused persons. In the present case, except for the evidence of P.W.8, who is the Investigating Officer, there are no witnesses to establish that the material objects were seized from the possession of the accused persons. Investigating Officer has conducted investigation, who cannot be said to be a best witness to prove seizure. Unless main ingredients of offence under Section 412 of I.P.C., i.e., seizure of stolen articles from possession of accused possession are proved, prosecution has no case to made out. 7.3 Furthermore, the prosecution case has become more doubtful when the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is contradictory regarding the snatching of cash from P.W.1. P.W.1 stated that the accused snatched away Rs.2,500/-, but P.W.2, in his evidence stated that accused snatched away Rs.5,500/- from his the possession. At this juncture, it appears that learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court did not properly consider the provisions of law regarding the ingredients required to prove the offence under Section 412 of I.P.C. 7.4 Merely on the basis of evidence of Investigating Officer, learned trial court should not have found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 412 of I.P.C., particularly when the main charge under Section 395 of I.P.C. was not proved by the prosecution. Therefore, learned trial court ought not to have convicted the accused under Section 412 of I.P.C.

without there being sufficient evidence to establish the possession of the stolen property by the accused persons. 7.5 Under the above observation, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner under Section 412 of I.P.C. is illegal and improper and the same is hereby set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the said offence.

8. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed and disposed of.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.21.09.2026 BV