“The prosecution has failed to place even an iota of material to connect the appellants with the offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder) and 379 (theft) read with Section 34 (common intention) IPC,” said the bench on January 6.
The bench directed that the acquitted accused be released if they were not required in any other case and ordered refund of any fines paid. (Image enhanced using AI)
Background
The case related to the killing of Billa Mowlali, a goat herder, whose body was found in a forest area in Guntur district in July 2013.
According to the prosecution, five accused persons, acting with a common intention, murdered him and stole 20 goats belonging to his family.
In 2018, the sessions court convicted four of the accused for murder and theft under Sections 302 and 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
One of the accused was also convicted under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) IPC for retaining stolen property.
Story continues below this ad
Challenging this verdict, the convicted men approached the high court through separate criminal appeals.
Arguments
Advocates Surepalli Madhava Rao, PSP Suresh Kumar, D Kodanda Ramireddy and Ammaji Nettem appearing for the appellants argued that the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove critical links such as the “last seen” theory.
They said that several key witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story.
The defence submitted that the only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was the recovery of the goats from the house of one accused nearly three months after the incident.
Story continues below this ad
This, they argued, was insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.
Opposing the appeals, additional public prosecutor Marri Venkata Ramana contended that the recovery of the stolen goats, duly identified by the complainant during a test identification parade, was a strong incriminating circumstance.
The APP argued that this recovery was enough to draw a presumption against the accused.
Observations
After examining the material on record the high court noted that there were no eyewitnesses and that the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence.
Story continues below this ad
It set aside the convictions and life sentences of three of the accused for murder and theft, acquitting them of all charges.
The fourth accused was also acquitted of murder and theft, though his conviction under Section 411 IPC for retaining stolen property was upheld.
The court directed that the acquitted accused be released if they were not required in any other case and ordered refund of any fines paid.
The bench observed that several witnesses examined to establish the chain of circumstances did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile.
Story continues below this ad
“Except the recovery of twenty goats from the house of one accused, there is no other material on record connecting the appellants with the offences,” the court said.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that “conviction under Sections 302 and 379 IPC cannot be sustained merely on the basis of recovery of stolen property,” particularly when the recovery is made after a long delay.
It added that it was highly improbable that stolen goats would be retained for months without being sold, as alleged by the prosecution.
The bench directed that the acquitted accused be released if they were not required in any other case and ordered refund of any fines paid. (Image enhanced using AI)
