Recovery Of Stolen Property Alone Can't Sustain Murder Conviction, Attracts Only Section 411 IPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere recovery of stolen property from an accused is not enough to convict them for murder, robbery, or lurking house trespass based only on circumstantial evidence.The Court said the prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances that clearly connects the accused to the crime. If it fails to do so, recovery of stolen property can, at...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mere recovery of stolen property from an accused is not enough to convict them for murder, robbery, or lurking house trespass based only on circumstantial evidence.
The Court said the prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances that clearly connects the accused to the crime. If it fails to do so, recovery of stolen property can, at best, establish that the accused was in conscious possession of the stolen articles, making them liable only for the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property under Section 411 IPC.
Allowing four criminal appeals filed by the four convicted accused in part, the Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Challa Gunaranjan set aside their convictions under Sections 302(murder), 460(House-trespass), 397(Robbery or dacoity), 352(assault or using criminal force without grave provocation) read with Section 34(common intention), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) IPC.
Instead, it convicted them under Section 411 IPC. Since the appellants had already spent more than three years in prison, the Court directed that they be released immediately if they were not required in any other case.
The Bench observed:
“Be that as it may, mere recovery of stolen property after the lapse of time, in the absence of any other incriminating circumstance, is by itself insufficient to establish that the accused were the perpetrators of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 or 460 IPC. At the most, such recovery establishes that the accused were found in conscious possession of the stolen property, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.
Thus, the prosecution has advanced inconsistent theories with regard to the motive for the accused to commit the offence. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence supporting any one of the alleged motive, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance of motive.”
The case arose out of the murder of a railway employee at the Railway Electric Traction Sub-Station in S. Kota, Vizianagaram, in May 2015.
According to the prosecution, the four accused entered the sub-station at night, assaulted the deceased and another railway employee, stole gold ornaments, and killed the deceased with bamboo sticks. The trial court convicted all four accused of murder and other offences and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. They submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish any motive, that the recoveries did not link the appellants to the murder, and that the the trial court had erroneously treated the accused's statements before the investigating officer as extra-judicial confessions.
Examining the evidence, the High Court found that none of the motives put forward by the prosecution had been proved. It noted that the allegation that Accused No.1 wanted the deceased's post was contradicted by the railway authorities' evidence. It also found no material to support the allegations that the accused had been stealing railway scrap or that financial difficulties had motivated the crime.
The Court also found lapses in the recovery of material objects. It held that the recovery of bamboo sticks and blood-stained clothes did not incriminate the accused because the articles were recovered from places accessible to the public.
Accordingly, the Court acquitted all four appellants of the major offences and convicted them only under Section 411 IPC in view of the recovery of the stolen gold ornaments from their conscious possession. It also directed their immediate release and ordered refund of the fines paid.
Case Title: Kalla Gopi & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Nos.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3012 of 2018, 3086 of 2018, 252 of 2020 and 323 of 2020
Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V. Nitesh, Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, Sri G. Venkata Subba Raju, and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar.
Counsel for the Respondent: Learned Public Prosecutor.