Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case

“Conviction for murder cannot rest solely on recovery of property, particularly when the chain of circumstances is incomplete,”  In a significant judgment impacting the jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence in criminal trials, the Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitted three accused convicted of murder and theft, holding that mere recovery of stolen property, in the absence of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

The Division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Subba Reddy Satti setting aside his convictions under Sections 302 and 379 IPC but confirming his conviction under Section 411 IPC for possessing stolen property.

“Last Seen Theory Not Established — Majority of Key Prosecution Witnesses Turned Hostile”

The case, which arose from the murder of one Billa Mowlali on 13 July 2013 in the forest area near Janapadu village in Guntur District, hinged entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that Accused Nos. 1 to 5, acting with common intention, murdered the deceased and committed theft of 20 goats.

While the trial court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 4 for murder (Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC) and theft (Section 379 IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment, the High Court found the prosecution's case seriously flawed due to the absence of direct evidence and breakdown of the chain of circumstances.

The Bench observed:

“Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses in the present case, and the prosecution rests its case entirely on circumstantial evidence. Though the prosecution tried to establish the ‘last seen’ theory, P.Ws.6 to 16 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.” [Para 16]

“Sole Reliance on Recovery of Goats from A2’s House After Three Months Cannot Prove Murder”

The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the recovery of 20 goats from the house of Accused No.2, nearly three months after the murder, along with an axe and a mobile phone allegedly linked to the deceased. However, the Court expressed serious doubt over the credibility and evidentiary value of such delayed recovery, noting the unnatural conduct in allegedly retaining the goats without disposing of them.

“The only circumstance available on record is the alleged recovery of twenty (20) goats from the house of A.2... except the said circumstance, there is no other material on record connecting the appellants with the offences under Sections 302 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC.” [Para 17]

While the Test Identification Parade of the goats by P.W.20 went unchallenged in cross-examination, the Court maintained that recovery alone, absent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis for conviction in a murder trial.

“Presumption Under Section 411 IPC Valid Only for Receiving Stolen Property, Not for Inferring Murder”

The Court differentiated between possession of stolen property under Section 411 IPC and inferring involvement in murder under Section 302 IPC, holding that the standards of proof and nature of inferences are materially different. Citing multiple Supreme Court judgments including Sonu @ Sunil v. State of M.P. [(2005) 2 SCC 388] and Tulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2004) 13 SCC 300], the Bench reiterated:

“Conviction under Sections 302 and 379 IPC cannot be sustained merely on the basis of recovery of stolen property... particularly when such recovery is effected after a considerable lapse of time.” [Para 18]

Rejecting the prosecution’s reliance on Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. [AIR 1995 SC 1598], the Court observed:

“The facts of the said case are entirely distinguishable... In Gulab Chand, the recovery pertained to jewellery, which could reasonably be retained by the accused without immediate disposal. In the case on hand, the appellants said to have committed theft of goats and they kept the same for a period of three months without selling. Therefore... does not advance the case of the prosecution.” [Para 20]

Conviction Under Section 411 IPC Against A2 Upheld

While discarding the charges under Sections 302 and 379 IPC against Accused No.2, the Court upheld his conviction under Section 411 IPC for possessing stolen goats. The Court noted:

“As the defence did not cross-examine P.W.20, who conducted the Test Identification Parade, the recovery of the goats can be accepted, and the prosecution could establish the said recovery at the instance of A.2.” [Para 19]

Accordingly, since A2 had already served the sentence for the offence under Section 411 IPC (three years’ imprisonment), he was also directed to be released forthwith.

Holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances to conclusively prove the involvement of the accused in the murder and theft, the High Court emphasized the vital safeguards inherent in criminal trials based on circumstantial evidence.

“The prosecution has failed to place even an iota of material to connect the appellants with the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 read with Section 34 IPC. Consequently, the convictions and sentences imposed upon the appellants are unsustainable.” [Para 20]

The appeals of Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were allowed in full, while the appeal of Accused No.2 was partly allowed, acquitting him of murder and theft but upholding the conviction under Section 411 IPC.

Date of Decision: 6 January 2026