PALLEPU VENKATI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Case is filed against the Judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 7/94 on the file of Sessions Judge, Karimnagar confirming the Common Judgment passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagital in S.C. Nos. 300/92 and 51/93, convicting of the Revision-petitioner (A-3 in S.C. No. 51/93) along with five others u/S. 395 I.P.C. and awarding the sentence of R.I. for seven years and find of Rs. 500.00 in default to suffer SI for two months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that the revision-petitioner (A-3 in S.C. No. 51/93) and others on 4-1-1992 at 10 p.m. entered into the rice mill belonging to PW-1. At that time PWs 5 and 6 were in the mill. The petitioner and others demanded PW-5 to give money. PW-5 told them that the money would be in the custody of PW-1 in his house. Then all the accused including the petitioner demanded PW-6 to open the almirah were they found cash of Rs. 1000.00. They also snatched away the wrist watch and others articles from PW-6 and along with PW-5, left the premises. PW-5 was threatened to show the house of PW-1. Accordingly, PW-5 led them to the house of PW-1. PW-1 opened the door. They entered the house of PW-1. PWs. 2 and 3, the wife and daughter of PW-1, were in the house. They demanded PWs-1 to 3 to give them cash and other valuable property at the point of knives. A-1 in the case slapped PW-1. They took PW-1 inside the house, ransacked the almirahs and snatched away all the valuable including writ watches worth about Rs. 42,000.00. After committing the decoity, they left the premises. The test identification parade has been held wherein the petitioner and other accused have been identified by PWs. 1 to 6. Considering the entire evidence and the articles recovered at the instance of the petitioner and other accused in the case, the trial Court found them guilty and convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, as stated earlier. The appellant Court on a re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record, confirmed the conviction and sentence.

(3.) Shri I. Aga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended before me that the recovery of wrist watch and 'Kamma' alleged to have been made at the instance of the petitioner, cannot be believed inasmuch as PWs-13 and 14 who were the mediators of the panchanama for the recovery, have turned hostile. It is true that this part of the evidence cannot be relied upon since the evidence in support of the recovery from the house of A-3 was based upon the evidence of PWs-13 and 14. When their evidence is not available since they turned hostile, the recoveries at the instance of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Police Prosecutor also fairly conceded that the recoveries are not acceptable.