Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four of Murder, Convicts Under Section 411 IPC After Prosecution's Circumstantial Chain Found Incomplete
A Division Bench at Amaravati set aside life sentences in a 2015 railway sub-station killing, finding the prosecution advanced inconsistent motives and failed to complete the chain of circumstances required for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, on 24 June 2026 allowed four criminal appeals in part and acquitted Kalla Gopi, Gandreddy Madhusudhan, Chukka Pavan Kumar, and Modandi Mohanraju of charges of murder, dacoity with attempt to cause death, lurking house trespass, criminal intimidation, and assault. The bench simultaneously convicted all four under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for dishonest receipt of stolen property — the gold ornaments recovered from their possession — and sentenced each to three years of rigorous imprisonment. Since all four had already served more than three years, the bench ordered their immediate release. The prosecution's entire case rested on circumstantial evidence, and the bench found that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, the motives alleged were mutually inconsistent, and the recoveries did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 4 SCC 116.
The Killing at Kothavalasa Railway Sub-Station
On the evening of 11 May 2015, a woman employed as a Technician at the East Coast Railway Electric Traction Sub-Station, S. Kota, Vizianagaram District, was beaten to death with bamboo sticks inside the sub-station premises. Her colleague P.W.1 was present and was herself threatened and robbed of her gold ornaments during the same incident. P.W.3, the deceased's husband, found the dead body lying outside the office room in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on the head and face.
The Sub-Inspector of Police, S. Kota Police Station, received information at about 10:15 p.m. that night. A case was registered at 1:30 a.m. on 12 May 2015 as Crime No. 114 of 2015, covering offences under Sections 460, 352, 506(2), 397 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The post-mortem, conducted by the Civil Assistant Surgeon at the Community Health Centre, S. Kota, attributed the cause of death to head injury.
On 16 June 2015 — more than a month after the incident — the Investigating Officer (P.W.33) intercepted all four accused near Lakshmi Ganapathi Sai Temple, S. Kota, while they were travelling on two motorcycles. Upon interrogation, they allegedly confessed. Separate confessional statements were recorded. Gold ornaments (M.Os. 1 to 3 and 5) were recovered from the possession of the accused, along with bamboo sticks (M.Os. 24 to 26) and blood-stained clothing (M.Os. 27 to 30) on subsequent dates.
Sessions Case No. 108 of 2016 was tried before the Family Court-cum-III Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The trial court convicted Accused No. 1 (Kalla Gopi) under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000, directing Rs. 40,000 to be paid to P.W.3 as compensation. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and each sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000. Additional convictions under Sections 460, 397, 352 and 506(2) IPC attracted concurrent sentences ranging from seven to ten years. All four appealed.
Three Motives, None Established
Because there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution built its case entirely on circumstantial evidence. The bench identified the three circumstances pressed by the prosecution: homicidal death of the deceased, motive for A1 to commit the murder, and recovery of material objects pursuant to confessional statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Homicidal death was undisputed. The bench therefore focussed on whether motive and recovery completed a convincing chain.
The first alleged motive was that Accused No. 1 (Kalla Gopi), after being promoted as Technician Grade-III on 21 April 2015, wanted a posting at S. Kota and believed eliminating the deceased — then working at S. Kota as a Technician — would create a vacancy for him. The bench rejected this. P.W.19, the Assistant Personnel Officer who held authority over such postings, deposed that Accused No. 1 had never submitted any requisition to him requesting a posting at S. Kota. The document Ex.P6, a requisition letter, had been marked through P.W.15, who was not the competent posting authority. More decisively, the deceased had been working as Technician Grade-II while Accused No. 1 was promoted as Technician Grade-III — different grades — meaning her elimination could not have opened the post for him in any event.
The second motive — that the accused regularly stole scrap copper and wires from the railway godown and were habitual offenders in that regard — was unsupported by any evidence. No scrap material or copper wires were recovered from the accused at any stage.
The third motive was financial desperation driving the accused to murder the deceased and steal her gold ornaments. The bench found that the prosecution had not placed any evidence establishing a conspiracy, and no charge under Section 120-B IPC had even been framed against any of the accused.
The bench observed that the prosecution had advanced divergent and mutually inconsistent versions of motive without cogently establishing any single one of them. The three theories pulled in different directions and could not collectively amount to proof of motive.
Recovery Under Section 27: Why It Did Not Sustain the Graver Convictions
The last and most critical circumstance was the recovery of stolen gold ornaments and weapons. The bench examined two categories separately.
For the gold ornaments (M.Os. 1 to 3 and 5), the bench accepted that they were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. P.Ws. 1 and 3 identified those ornaments as belonging to the deceased. However, the recovery had occurred more than one month after the incident, on 16 June 2015. The prosecution offered no explanation for why the accused would have retained the jewellery for that long without disposing of it, particularly if the motive was financial gain. The bench held that mere recovery of stolen property after a significant lapse of time, absent any other incriminating circumstance, could at most sustain a conviction for dishonest possession under Section 411 IPC, but not for murder, dacoity or lurking house trespass.
For the bamboo sticks and blood-stained clothing (M.Os. 24 to 30), the bench found that P.W.33's own evidence disclosed these were recovered from an open place accessible to the general public. The prosecution had not established that the place of recovery was within the exclusive knowledge or exclusive control of the accused. Without that exclusivity, the recovery could not be treated as an incriminating circumstance connecting the appellants to the offences.
The bench also rejected the trial court's approach of treating the statements made before P.W.33 as extra-judicial confessions. A confession before a police officer is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act except to the limited extent permitted by Section 27. Those statements therefore could not be used as substantive evidence.
Applying the Five Golden Principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
The bench applied the five principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 4 SCC 116, governing cases based solely on circumstantial evidence. Those principles require that the circumstances be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive in nature, excluding every other hypothesis, and forming a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for innocence.
Against that standard, the bench found the prosecution case wanting. Apart from the recovery of ornaments from the accused's possession, no other incriminating circumstance was established to the requisite degree. The chain of circumstances remained incomplete. The prosecution had not negatived the hypothesis that the accused came into possession of the ornaments otherwise than by committing the murder.
The bench therefore set aside all convictions under Sections 302, 460, 352 read with Section 34 IPC, 397 IPC and 506(2) IPC. In their place, it convicted all four accused under Section 411 IPC — dishonestly receiving stolen property — relying on the identification of M.Os. 1 to 3 and 5 by P.Ws. 1 and 3 and the recovery from the accused's conscious possession without a satisfactory explanation.
Outcome
By a common judgment dated 24 June 2026, the Division Bench allowed Criminal Appeal Nos. 3012 of 2018, 3086 of 2018, 252 of 2020 and 323 of 2020 in part. The convictions and sentences recorded by the Family Court-cum-III Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in Sessions Case No. 108 of 2016 on 18 September 2018, under Sections 302, 460, 352 read with 34 IPC, 397 IPC and 506(2) IPC, were set aside. All four appellants were acquitted of those charges.
Each of the four appellants was convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. Since all four had already undergone more than three years of custody, the bench directed their release forthwith, provided they were not required in connection with any other case. Any fine paid pursuant to the trial court's judgment was ordered to be refunded. All pending miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence.