JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused No. 1 (A.1) in Sessions case No. 58 of 2009, on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), challenging the judgment, dated 14.09.2010, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the A.1/present appellant along with A.2 guilty of the charge under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) in alternative to Section 379 of I.P.C., convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the present appellant and A.2 not guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C. and accordingly, acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful A.1 with regard to the charge under Section 411 of I.P.C. filed the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience. 3. When this appeal is coming for hearing, the Registry placed information that insofar as A.2 is concerned, he did not file any appeal. 4. The Sessions Case No. 58 of 2009, on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, arose out of a committal order passed in P.R.C. No. 1 of 2008, on the file of III Metropolitan magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 5. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam Circle, Visakhapatnam city, filed charge sheet in Crime No. 48 of 2007 of Pendurthi Police Station, alleging in substance that A.1 is a private electrician and he was attending to the electrical works and repairs of the shop of one Penumatsa Balarama Raju (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”). Taking advantage of the same, the deceased was visiting the house of A.1 and meeting the wife of A.1 in his absence. A.1 was suspecting that the deceased had illegal contact with his wife and decided to do away the life of the deceased. He sought the assistance of A.2 in the commission of offence. Taking advantage of the same, the deceased was visiting the house of A.1 and meeting the wife of A.1 in his absence. A.1 was suspecting that the deceased had illegal contact with his wife and decided to do away the life of the deceased. He sought the assistance of A.2 in the commission of offence. In pursuance of their plan, A.1 and A.2 took the deceased in an Auto bearing No. A.P.31W 7853 of A.2, to a newly laid VUDA Road at Arilova on 03.02.2007 at 10-30 p.m., on the pretext of supplying of ladies to the deceased for his sexual intercourse. There, A.1 picked up a stone and crushed the head of the deceased and also cut the throat of the deceased with a blade and A.2 also slit the throat of the deceased with a blade and later they committed theft of gold chain, gold bracelet, gold ring and Nokia cell phone from the deceased and shared the booty between them. Earlier the deceased was sitting in front of his shop, P.W.1 and others were attending to work the shop. Later while the deceased was found missing on the night of 03.02.2007, Smt. P. Subbalaxmi, wife of deceased, lodged a complaint with Pendurthi Police, who registered the same as F.I.R. under man-missing case and on the next day on coming to know lying of dead body near the newly laid VUDA road at Arilova, P.W.1 and others went and noticed the dead body of the deceased and lodged another complaint. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, Pendurthi Police altered section of law and took up investigation and visited the scene of offence and seized Material Objects there. Later, he held inquest over the dead body in the presence of panch witnesses and sent the same for autopsy. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police arrested A.1 on 10.05.2007 at Gajuwaka bus stop, NAD Kotha Road Junction, in the presence of panchas. The Inspector of Police seized gold chain from the possession of A.1 and he also seized blood stained pant and T-shirt from his house in the presence of panchas under cover of mediators’ report. In pursuance of the confession of A.1, he also arrested A.2 and seized gold bracelet and blood stained clothes from the house of A.2 and also the auto used in the commission of offence from his premises. In pursuance of the confession of A.1, he also arrested A.2 and seized gold bracelet and blood stained clothes from the house of A.2 and also the auto used in the commission of offence from his premises. Later, in pursuance of the statement of A.2, a gold ring of the deceased with image of Lord Venkateswara was seized from P.W.4 to whom he pledged the same and also Nokia cell phone from P.W.5 to whom A.2 sold, belonging to the deceased and these gold ring and Nokia cell phone were seized in the presence of panchas. Later, in the Test Identification the gold ornaments of the deceased were identified by P.W.1 and subsequently the Inspector of Police forwarded the Material Objects during the course of investigation to FSL and after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet. 6. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, took cognizance under Sections 302, 379 or 411 of I.P.C. and after appearance of A.1 and A.2 and after following the procedure under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., as the case was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam, after numbered the case as Sessions Case made over the same to the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. On appearance of both the accused before the Court below, charges under Sections 302 and 379 and in alternative of 379 I.P.C., 411 of I.P.C. were framed and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution before the Court below examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.28 and further got marked M.O.1 to M.O.13. Accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. after the evidence of the prosecution was completed, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances. They did not let in any defence evidence. 8. Accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. after the evidence of the prosecution was completed, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances. They did not let in any defence evidence. 8. The learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, on hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C., but, found them guilty of the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and convicted them under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. Challenging the same, A.1 filed the present appeal. A.2 did not file any appeal according to the information placed by the Registry. 9. The scope of this appeal is very limited one. The prosecution did not file any appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C. Hence, in deciding this appeal, the points for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved that A.1 was found in possession of the stolen property relating to the deceased as alleged? (2) Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 411 of I.P.C. against A.1 beyond reasonable doubt? Point Nos. 1 and 2: 10. Sri M. Surya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the Court below having disbelieved the case of the prosecution under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C., erroneously recorded the conviction against the appellant under Section 411 of I.P.C. The so-called gold chain which was alleged to be seized from the possession of appellant was planted one to fasten criminal liability against A.1. The trial Judge did not appreciate the case of the prosecution in proper perspective. The trial Judge should have disbelieved the evidence of the mediators and the investigating officer. There was a delay with regard to missing of the deceased and the recovery of the gold ornaments from the possession of the accused. The sentence imposed is unduly severe. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. The trial Judge should have disbelieved the evidence of the mediators and the investigating officer. There was a delay with regard to missing of the deceased and the recovery of the gold ornaments from the possession of the accused. The sentence imposed is unduly severe. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly looked into the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 spoken about the gold ornaments which were wore by her husband and that she duly identified the gold ornaments in Test Identification Parade and that she identified the same before the Court below and that the recovery was proved by virtue of the evidence of the investigating officer as well as panch witnesses and that another panch witnesses conducted Test Identification Parade and that accused did not dispute that the gold ornaments belonged to the deceased, as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly delivered the judgment of conviction against the appellant. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Now, I would like to refer here the evidence insofar as charge under Section 411 of I.P.C. is concerned. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and her evidence insofar as the charge under Section 411 of I.P.C. is concerned, is that when the deceased was found missing, he was wearing gold chain, gold bracelet and two gold rings and he was also having a mobile phone with him. He was also wearing Quartz watch. Out of two rings, one is with red stone and another is having image of Lord Venkateswara. Apart from the above, she deposed about missing of the deceased and her lodging reports and came to know about the dead body, etc. Her evidence is that two or three months later, she identified gold jewellary i.e., one gold chain, gold bracelet and gold ring having the image of Lord Venkateswara in the Junior College premises at Pendurthi in the presence of panchas. Those items were mixed with some other items of the similar nature. Ex.P.3 is the mediators report prepared at the time of the identification of the property. M.O.1 is gold chain, M.O.2 is bracelet and M.O.3 is gold ring with Lord Venkateswara image. These items belonged to her husband. M.O.4 is Quartz watch belonged to her husband. Those items were mixed with some other items of the similar nature. Ex.P.3 is the mediators report prepared at the time of the identification of the property. M.O.1 is gold chain, M.O.2 is bracelet and M.O.3 is gold ring with Lord Venkateswara image. These items belonged to her husband. M.O.4 is Quartz watch belonged to her husband. M.O.5 is gold ring with red stone. M.O.6 is Nokia cell phone belonged to her husband. 13. Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, which is relevant with regard to the charge under Section 411 of I.P.C. he deposed that he got acquaintance with A.2. He is an Auto driver. Three years ago he purchased a Nokia mobile phone from A2. He paid Rs.500/- to A.2. He purchased Idea SIM card for the mobile phone purchased by him. Two days later, police brought A.2 to his house and enquired whether he sold any mobile phone to him. He handed over the mobile phone i.e., M.O.6 to the police. 14. Coming to the evidence of P.W.8, the panch witness, previously he worked as Revenue Inspector in M.R.O. Office, Pendurthi. Presently he is working in Civil Supplies Department. He was panch witness at the time of arrest and seizure. On 10.05.2007 at 1-00 p.m., he went to Gajuwaka bus stop in N.A.D. junction. They noticed A.1 who was present there with a suitcase in his hand. One Venkateswara Rao, a Panchayat Secretary was another panch witness. Police arrested A.1 in his presence under the cover of confession. A.1 opened the suitcase and handed over a gold chain to the police and they seized under the cover of Ex.P.13, the relevant portion in the confession statement. A.1 led them to his house and produced a pant and shirt which were also seized by the police. Police seized the same under Ex.P.14 seizurenama. M.O.1 is the gold chain, M.O.7 is the shirt and M.O.8 is the pant. A.1 led them to Durganagar, Arilova to the house of A.2 where they found A.2. Police arrested A.2, who produced one gold bracelet (M.O.2) and also produced a small pocket note book which is Ex.P.4. He also produced one pant and shirt. M.O.9 is pant and M.O.10 is shirt. They were seized under Ex.P.15 seizurenama for M.O.9 and M.O.10. A.2 also produced Auto rickshaw bearing No. A.P.31W 7853 which was also covered under Ex.P.15. Police arrested A.2, who produced one gold bracelet (M.O.2) and also produced a small pocket note book which is Ex.P.4. He also produced one pant and shirt. M.O.9 is pant and M.O.10 is shirt. They were seized under Ex.P.15 seizurenama for M.O.9 and M.O.10. A.2 also produced Auto rickshaw bearing No. A.P.31W 7853 which was also covered under Ex.P.15. A.2 led them to the house of P.W.4 to whom he pledged M.O.3 gold ring with image of Lord Venkateswara. Ex.P.16 is the seizure report for M.O.3. Ex.P.17 is the relevant portion leading to recovery. From there A.2 led them to Kobbarithota to the house of P.W.5 and P.W.5 produced M.O.6 cell phone which was sold to him by A.2. It was seized under Ex.P.18 seizure report. 15. Coming to the evidence of P.W.12, the investigating officer, his evidence with regard to the seizure is that on 10.05.2007 he arrested A.1 at NAD bus stop in the presence of panchas, P.W.8 and Venkata Rao. He seized M.O.1 from A.1 in the presence of panchas, P.W.8 and D. Venkata Rao. Ex.P.13 is the relevant portion in the confession leading to recovery. A.1 produced M.O.7 and M.O.8 from his house under Ex.P.14 seizure report. A.1 led them to the house of A.2 where they found A.2 and arrested him. They seized M.O.2 from him. They also seized M.O.9 and M.O.10. He also seized Auto bearing No. A.P.31W 7853. He seized Ex.P.4 pocket note book under Ex.P.15. A.2 led them to the house of P.W.4 and they seized M.O.3 gold ring under cover of Ex.P.16. Ex.P.17 is the relevant portion leading to recovery. A.2 led to the house of P.W.5 where they recovered M.O.6 cell phone belonged to the deceased. 16. Coming to the evidence of P.W.9, another panch witness, he supported the case of the prosecution with regard to conducting of test identification parade involving M.O.1 to M.O.3. So, his evidence is that on 11.05.2007 at request of police, he conducted test identification of property. One D. Rama Rao is another panch witness. It was held at the premises of Junior College, Pendurthi. P.W.1 identified M.O.1 to M.O.3. Some other items were also mixed with M.O.1 to M.O.3. Ex.P.13 is identification proceedings. 17. So, his evidence is that on 11.05.2007 at request of police, he conducted test identification of property. One D. Rama Rao is another panch witness. It was held at the premises of Junior College, Pendurthi. P.W.1 identified M.O.1 to M.O.3. Some other items were also mixed with M.O.1 to M.O.3. Ex.P.13 is identification proceedings. 17. This Court would like to make it clear that insofar as M.O.2, M.O.3 and M.O.6 are concerned, the prosecution alleged that they were seized pursuant to the information given by A.2. Insofar as present appellant is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that the investigating officer seized M.O.1 from the physical possession of A.1 at the time of arrest. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, she identified M.O.1 which is the gold chain in the test identification parade. Her evidence is not challenged in the cross examination. She deposed in cross examination that somebody scribed Ex.P.3 panchas themselves asked her to identify the property. She has no acquaintance with them. So, with regard to the identification made by P.W.1 that M.O.1 belonged to her husband, her evidence was not under challenge in the cross examination. Her evidence has corroboration from the evidence of P.W.9, the panch witness, who conducted test identification parade by requesting P.W.1 to identify M.O.1 to M.O.3 when they were mixed with other articles. There remained nothing in the cross examination of P.W.9 also except giving suggestions which he denied. Therefore, there is consistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and 9 with regard to the fact that P.W.1 identified M.O.1 in the test identification parade when it was mixed with other items. Her evidence that M.O.1 belonged to the deceased was not challenged in her cross examination. 18. Coming to the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.12, their evidence consistently establishes the recovery of M.O.1 from the possession of A.1 when he was arrested at NAD junction, Visakhapatnam. Coming to the evidence of P.W.8, the panch witness, during cross examination he deposed that they noticed A.1 at the second bus stop. The description of M.O.1 was not given in the confessional statement. He denied that he is deposing false. 19. It is to be noticed that it is not a case where P.W.1 lodged any report especially relating to the description of gold ornaments which were in the custody of her husband at the time of his missing. The description of M.O.1 was not given in the confessional statement. He denied that he is deposing false. 19. It is to be noticed that it is not a case where P.W.1 lodged any report especially relating to the description of gold ornaments which were in the custody of her husband at the time of his missing. She lodged two reports stating that the deceased was found missing. So, the major concern was about missing of her husband. There was no possibility to make descriptive particulars of gold ornaments. Therefore, when A.1 was arrested by the police in the presence of panch witnesses and when they found a gold chain in the suitcase of A.1, the seizurenama need not contain the descriptive particulars of M.O.1. Hence, there remained nothing in the course of cross examination of P.W.8 and P.W.12 to disbelieve their testimony. The evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.12 is fully convincing with regard to the arrest of A.1 and recovery of M.O.1. 20. The evidence of P.W.4 is relating to the pledging of the gold ornaments by A.2. The evidence of P.W.5 is relating to pledging of mobile phone by A.2. So, the crucial evidence as against the present appellant with regard to the allegation that he possessed M.O.1, gold chain of the deceased as stolen property is that of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.8, P.W.12 and P.W.9-the panch witness for conducting test identification parade. There remained nothing in their cross examination to disbelieve their testimony. The investigating officer has no reason to plant M.O.1 as against the appellant and to fabricate a case. The learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly found guilty of the present appellant under Section 411 of I.P.C. 21. Having regard to the above, I do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 23. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 02.05.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant/A.1 and to report compliance to this Court. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.