Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gangolu Wilson Kumar vs State Of Telangana In Crl.A.No.3605 Of ... on 31 March, 2026
APHC010508492012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3560]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 126/2012
Between:
1. GANGOLU WILSON KUMAR, W.G.DISTRICT AND ANOTHER, S/O.
SUGUNA RAO R/O. OPP: ONGC, NARASAPURAM, W.G.DISTRICT.
2. CHILAKAPATI JOSEPH, S/O. TATAIAH ABRAHAM DRIVER R/O.
28TH WARD, RUSTUMBADA, NARASAPURAM, W.G.DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE SHO INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY POLICE
RAJAHMUNDRY BYPP, SHO, Inspector of Railway Police,
Rajahmundry, Vijayawada, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High
Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
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 present the above criminal revision
case questioning the judgment in Crl.A.No. 95 of 2010 dated 20-01-2011 on
the file of the Court of the Sessions, Metropolitan Division, Vijayawada,
Krishna District (Metropolitan Sessions Judge) in confirming the judgment in
C.C.No. 202 of 2007 dated 11-05-2010 on the file of the court of the II
Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 171 OF 2012
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
2
dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No. 202 of
2007 dated 11-05-2010 on the file of the court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate
for Railways, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
IA NO: 2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 196 OF 2012
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
enlarge the petitioners on bail by suspending the operation of the Judgment
passed in CrlA.No.95/2010 dt. 20-01-2011 on the file of the court of the
Sessions, Metropolitan Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District [Metropolitan
Sessions Judge] in confirming the judgment in C.C.No.202/2007 dt. 11-05-
2010 on the file of the court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways,
Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above CrlRC and pass.
..
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following Order:
Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned appellate Court, wherein and whereunder both the learned Courts below found the present petitioners being A1and A2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued basically on two points, firstly, there are prosecution witnesses namely PW.7 and PW.8, mediators, who were allegedly present at the time of the arrest of the accused persons. PW.7 turned hostile, PW.8, though supported the prosecution case but it would be revealed that PW.8 is a stock witness of the police. He deposed in favour of the prosecution in other two cases. Thus, his evidence cannot be believed. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of the confessions made by the petitioners in presence of PW.8, the conviction of present petitioners is not maintainable. She submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in dealing with similar issue in Sd.SHabuddin vs. State of Telangana in Crl.A.No.3605 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025 has held that the conviction under Section 411 IPC without any evidence except solitary confessionary statement is not maintainable.
3. Secondly, the petitioners themselves not required to explain their possession of huge amount of money but the prosecution has failed to bring 4 the relatives of the accused persons to show justification of possession of the money by the accused persons. In this regard, she also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided in implication of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act in the case under Section 411 IPC.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidentiary value of PW.8 has categorically observed by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court has also categorically observed that the evidence of PW.8 cannot be discarded though he has deposed in favour of the prosecution in other cases. He further submits that the conviction is based on evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is no merit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below.
6. The prosecution case is that PW.1 was running a jewellery shop in the East Godavari District. On 09.07.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. while he was standing in a queue of railway station to purchase railway ticket, some unknown offenders committed theft of his black colour bag containing cash of Rs.20 lakhs. On the same day at about 9.00 p.m., he reported the matter to the police. During the course of investigation, I.O., arrested petitioners on 11.07.2007 at 6 p.m. at RTC Complex, Bhimavaram in presence of mediators, PW.7 and PW.8. He seized a part of stolen cash of Rs.19,94,000/- from their possession under mediators report. Charge was framed against the 5 petitioners under Section 411 IPC. Prosecution examined ten witnesses, several documents were marked. Stolen property including cash and black colour bag was recorded and marked as material object Nos.1 to 3. After trial, petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but they denied the allegations and incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidences. After conclusion of trial and arguments, learned trial Court has found the petitioners guilty for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. Hence, the impugned order of conviction is recorded. The learned appellate Court, after hearing the parties, has also confirmed the order of conviction. Hence, the instant revision case.
7. The evidentiary value of PW.8 was challenged by defence before the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. The defence argued before learned Courts below that evidence of PW.8 cannot be believed as he is a stock witness. In support of their contention, they have placed copy of the deposition of PW.8, who was examined in Sessions Case No.256 of 2008 as well as in C.C.No.323 of 2007, which are pending in the file of different Courts. It is the analogy of the learned trial Court that though PW.8 was examined in other two cases on behalf of the prosecution there is no enmity between PW.8 and the petitioners, rather it was not suggested regarding the previous enmity, thus, there is no reason for PW.8 to depose against the petitioners. Learned trial Court is of the view that even if, PW.8 has deposed in different other cases on behalf of the prosecution, that does not discard the evidence of PW.8, there is no need to him to give false evidence against the petitioners. It 6 is the further opinion of the learned appellate Court that it is not possible for the prosecution to plant such huge amount of money to foist a case against the present petitioners.
8. Perused the observation of the learned appellate Court.
9. In case of Sd. Shabuddin (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in dealing with the case though charges were framed under Section 302, 201 and 379 of IPC, appellant before learned Apex Court was found guilty only for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC on the basis of a extra-Judicial confession of one co-accused. In deciding the said issue, the Apex Court has framed two particular points in paragraph 12 as follows:
"12. The issues in the present appeal that have fallen for our consideration are two-fold:-
I. Whether the judgment dated 7th March, 2024, passed by the High Court places a reverse burden of proof upon the appellant and is thus, legally unsustainable?
II. Whether the conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property can be sustained in view of the fact that both the accused stand acquitted for the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 IPC?"
10. In deciding the said points, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 14.2 has held that "14.2. In our view, to base a conviction under Section 411 IPC solely on the ground that both the accused were unable to account for being in possession of such huge amount of cash is both incorrect and untenable. Therefore, the approach adopted by 7 the High Court in upholding the order of conviction of Trial Court for inability of the accused to account for the cash so recovered from their possession is alien to the criminal jurisprudence of our legal system."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, basis on the said observation of the learned Apex Court, is of the opinion that unless and until there are other sufficient grounds, conviction under Section 411 IPC it would be untenable solely dependent on unexplained accounts of petitioners of such huge amount of cash. Further submits that though the present petitioners did not account their possession of huge amount of money that itself does not allow the Court to record conviction under Section 411 IPC.
12. After reading the entire observation of Hon'ble Apex Court, it appears that initially the co-accused was charged under Sections 302, 201 and 379 IPC. The appellant before the Apex Court was charged under Section 379 and 201 IPC. Learned trial Court acquitted both the accused persons for the charge under Section 302, 201 and 379 IPC but found guilty of both the accused under Section 411 IPC and sentenced of three years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution has, based on extra-judicial confession of PW.12 who disclosed that the prime accused was confessed before him regarding the murder of the deceased and incinerated the dead body in a pyre at the outskirts of Appalraopet. On the basis of such fact and the evidence on record, the Apex Court is of the view that the conviction under Section 411 8 IPC is not tenable solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession of one witness, namely PW.12.
13. In the case in hand, prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses among them PW.1 is the complainant, PWs.2 to 6 are the witnesses, who have deposed regarding the factum of that incident. PWs.7 and 8 are the seizure witnesses in the presence of whom, petitioners were arrested and seizure was affected in respect of the cash of amount of Rs.19,94,000/-. PWs.9 and 10 are the police witnesses. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is of the view that the offence of theft has been committed and on the basis of PWs.7 and 8 has held that the present petitioners were arrested in the presence of PWs.8 and has confessed their guilty.
14. Let me understand the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sd.Shabuddin. In the case of Sd. Shabuddin, the entire prosecution was started for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC along with theft of money under Section 379 IPC. The entire prosecution is based on evidence of extra-judicial confession of one witness namely PW.12. Learned trial Court has found no support of prosecution witness except the evidence of PW.12, who stated about extra-judicial confession of prime accused before him, thereby, both the accused persons were acquitted from all charges as framed, however, as huge money was deposited in the Bank on the same day and as it was unexplained, the order of convicted was passed under Section 411 IPC. 9 In the case of Sd. Shabuddin, the Hon'ble Apex Court is of the view that the offence under Section 411 IPC solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession and as the accused was unable to account for their possession of such huge amount, is not maintainable. In this particular case, the entire charge was under Section 411 IPC and prosecution witnesses were allowed to prove the charges under Section 411 IPC.
15. In this case, the factum of theft has been stated by PWs.1 to 6, PWs.7 and 8 are the seizure witnesses, though, PW.7 turned hostile. PW.8 supported prosecution case, PW.10 is investigating officer, whose action in seizing the huge amount of money from the possession of the present petitioners has been proved. The confession of the present petitioners before PW.8 as mediator is not the solitary confession, but it was leading to the recovery of huge amount of money. The fact suggests that Rs.12,00,000/- was seized from the 1st petitioner and Rs.7,94,000/- was seized from the possession of the 2nd petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioners did not disclose any account in respect of their possession of huge amount of money. The entire reading of evidence of prosecution in this particular case is totally different to the entire evidence of the case of Sd. Shabuddin (supra). The account of possession of the money by the present petitioners, who allegedly confessed possession of stolen amount, was not disclosed. In the case of Sd. Shabuddin, it was also not disclosed either before the appellant Court or before the trial Court. As there are no evidence on record before the learned Apex Court in the case of Sd. Shabuddin, the learned Apex Court has set aside conviction of the trial 10 Court under Section 411 IPC solely on ground that both the accused was unable to account the possession of such huge amount of money. But in this particular case, there are other witnesses to prove that the present petitioners were in possession of huge amount of stolen money. In this case, the evidence of PW.8 was alleged to be a stock mediator cannot be accepted. The explanation made by the learned trial Court in this regard is accepted. The prosecution has no reason to frame a criminal case against present petitioners. Moreover, if PW.1 wanted to frame a case, he must mention the name of the petitioners in the complaint. Money was seized during the course of investigation in the presence of PW.8, thus, in my view, the observation of the learned trial Court suffers no illegality and impropriety. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court, appears to me justified.
16. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the order of conviction passed by Trial Court and confirmed by Appellate Court.
17. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit. The order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court during pendency of the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby revoked. The Petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within six (06) weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve out the remaining portion of sentence, failing which, learned Trial Court shall issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the present petitioners to comply the order. 11
18. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 31.03.2026 SPP 12 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.126 of 2012 Dated 31.03.2026 SPP