ORDER : The judgment, dated 21.06.2010 in Sessions Case No.265 of 2009, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (“Sessions Judge” for short) is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal by the unsuccessful accused. The accused before the learned Sessions Judge faced trial for the charges under Section 302 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge extended an order of acquittal in favour of the accused insofar as the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned, but found him guilty of the charge under Section 411 of I.P.C., convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the said judgment. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Court below for the sake of the convenience. 3. The Sessions Case No.265 of 2009 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.11 of 2009 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru, relating to Crime No.81 of 2008 of Mandapeta Rural Police Station. 4. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Mandapeta Circle, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.81 of 2008 of Mandapeta Rural Police Station, alleging the offences under Sections 302 of I.P.C. and 379 of I.P.C. in alternative under Section 411 of I.P.C. (alternative to Section 379 of I.P.C.). 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set-out in the charge sheet is as follows: (i) The accused is resident of Vemulapalli Village, H/o Dwarapudi, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. He is a desperate character. One Sangisetti Nageswara Rao @ Nagaiah is the deceased (hereinafter will be referred to as “deceased”). (ii) L.W.1-Penumaka Nageswara Rao @ Nagesh is working as farm servant under the deceased. He and his family members used to stay in the fields itself in the shed. The deceased is the Vice President of PACS of the village. They got lands in Vyra Village of Khammam District and later they sold away. (ii) L.W.1-Penumaka Nageswara Rao @ Nagesh is working as farm servant under the deceased. He and his family members used to stay in the fields itself in the shed. The deceased is the Vice President of PACS of the village. They got lands in Vyra Village of Khammam District and later they sold away. (iii) During the night of 10.07.2008 at 10.15 p.m., the deceased kept the cash of Rs.3,50,000/- in the newspaper bundle and kept the bundle in the plastic wire basket and told his daughter L.W.5-Sangisetti Lakshmi Durga that he would go out and come soon. Between 10-30 and 10-45 p.m., the deceased reached his fields. On noticing the deceased, the accused asked him whether he brought the cash. The deceased said that he brought the cash and asked the accused to show the gold. On the pretext of showing the gold, the accused picked up the knife from the rice bag which he brought there and hacked the deceased on the back of his neck four or five times. The deceased fell down crying. L.W.1 heard the cries of the deceased from the drumstick tree side and he went there. He found the deceased with bleeding injuries in a pool of blood. The deceased told him that the accused informed to him that he got some gold and that he would give it for a cheaper rate, as such, he brought the cash of Rs.3,50,000/- to the fields where the accused came there, hacked him with knife and committed theft of cash and escaped. Then, L.W.1 informed the incident to L.W.3-Sangisetti Narayudu. L.W.3 and L.W.7-Koppisetti Satyanarayana came to the fields. By then, L.W.2-Kundrapu Appa Rao and Kotcherla Syamala also came there. The deceased told to L.W.2, L.W.3, L.W.7 and Kotcherla Styamala that the accused called him to offer gold and when he brought Rs.5,00,000/-, the accused hacked him with knife on his neck, back and right hand and committed theft of cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and escaped. The deceased was shifted in 108 Ambulance to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry and on the way, he died. The 108 Ambulance staff declared him as dead. The dead body of the deceased was brought to the daughter of the deceased house. The deceased was shifted in 108 Ambulance to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry and on the way, he died. The 108 Ambulance staff declared him as dead. The dead body of the deceased was brought to the daughter of the deceased house. (iv) On 11.07.2008 at 5-00 a.m., L.W.3 gave a report and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandapeta Rural Police Station, registered F.I.R. in Crime No.81 of 2008 under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C. L.W.23-Inspector of Police investigated. L.W.23 examined all the witnesses during the investigation. He visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators L.W.18- Mandapalli Bhanu and L.W.19-Surampudi Ramakrishna. He seized Sakshi daily newspaper, dated 08.07.2008 i.e., pages 1, 2, 15 and 16, one blood stained hundred rupee note and one fifty rupee note which is fully wet with blood. He also seized a key bunch with two keys, pair of Hawai chappals with red colour straps and blood stained earth and controlled earth at the scene of offence. He got photographed the crime scene and the dead body of the deceased with the help of a private Photographer, L.W.17-Chinta Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Prasad @ Prasad. L.W.23 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and later forwarded the dead body to postmortem examination. As there was a discrepancy as to the quantum of amount that was taken by the deceased from the house, he examined L.W.3 to L.W.6 and they confirmed that the amount was of Rs.3,50,000/-. L.W.21-Dr. T. Durgaraju, Civil Assistant Surgeon, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate opining that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained by him. (v) On 24.07.2008 at 1-00 p.m. at Rellipeta, Mossallacheruvu, Dwarapudi, L.W.23 arrested the accused in the presence of L.W.18 and L.W.19 mediators. When L.W.23 interrogated the accused, he made confession which lead to the recovery of cash of Rs.3,50,000/-, the clothes which the accused wore at the time of commission of offence and the knife with which he caused death of the deceased. A mahazarnama was drafted to that effect. The crime weapon, the wearing apparels of the accused and the clothes found on the body of the deceased have been sent to the RFSL and the expert gave report stating that human blood was detected but the blood group could not be ascertained. A mahazarnama was drafted to that effect. The crime weapon, the wearing apparels of the accused and the clothes found on the body of the deceased have been sent to the RFSL and the expert gave report stating that human blood was detected but the blood group could not be ascertained. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment under Sections 302 and 379 or 411 of I.P.C. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru, took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and after exercising powers under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions Division i.e., the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry after appearance of the accused and after following the procedure under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C. against the accused and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried. 7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 were marked. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 were marked respectively. Further M.O.1 to M.O.9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which he denied the same. He did not let in any evidence. 8. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, disbelieved the case of the prosecution insofar as charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned, but, believed the recovery of cash of Rs.3,50,000/- pursuant to the confession made by the accused and believed the evidence of daughter of the deceased i.e., P.W.4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and convicted him and sentenced him as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused, challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 411 of I.P.C., filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. The learned Principal Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and convicted him and sentenced him as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused, challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 411 of I.P.C., filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Now, in deciding the present Criminal Appeal, the point that arises for consideration is that as to whether the prosecution before the Court below proved that the accused was found in possession of stolen cash of Rs.3,50,000/- in terms of Section 411 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt? Point:- 10. Smt. B. Poonam, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the Court below having recorded an order of acquittal insofar as the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned, by disbelieving the case of the prosecution, erred in convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 411 of I.P.C. The Court below ignored several contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There was no commission of theft proved by the prosecution. The cash of Rs.3,50,000/- was planted by the investigating officer to strengthen the case of the prosecution, as the prosecution had no definite evidence. The Court below disbelieved the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to know through the deceased that the accused hacked him. The cause of death was instantaneous at the spot giving no chance to anybody to go and converse with the deceased. When that was the situation, the Court below without proper appreciation of the evidence on record instead of disbelieving the case of the prosecution under Section 411 of I.P.C., erroneously convicted the accused, as such, appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution insofar as the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned and with sound reasons and looking into the facts and circumstances properly believed the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of the stolen cash of Rs.3,50,000/- and the judgment of the Court below is absolutely sustainable under law and facts, as such, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. 12. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the accused told the deceased that he had the gold and that he would deliver the gold at cheaper price and upon the said words of the accused, the deceased took away cash of Rs.3,50,000/- at odd hours to the accused during night where the accused attacked the deceased and decamped with the booty. This is the sum and substance of the case of the prosecution. 13. The prosecution examined P.W.4, the daughter of the deceased, who testified that about 15 months ago her father died. At that time at about 10-00 p.m., her father asked her to give newspaper and she gave newspaper. Her father kept some amount and wrapped with the newspaper. Then her father stated that he was going outside asking her to close the doors of the house and sleep. Prior to that, her father also asked her to give a wire bag, as such, she gave wire bag. He kept the money inside the wire bag and left the place. Then she closed the doors of the house and slept inside. At about 11-00 p.m., her paternal grandfather, Brahmaiah, came and knocked the doors of the house. She opened the doors and found him. He informed her that the accused killed her father and taken away the money with him. Then her grandfather left the house. At about 2-00 or 2-30 a.m., the dead body of her father was brought to the house in Ambulance. Police examined her. 14. Admittedly, insofar as the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution examined P.W.1, the socalled farm servant and P.W.2, who claimed to have gone to the place of offence along with P.W.1 and further examined P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6, who came to know about the occurrence. The evidence adduced by the prosecution by examining P.W.1 and P.W.2 is such that when they heard cries and when they went to the fields, they found the deceased in a pool of blood and he (deceased) intimated to them that the accused told him that he would give gold at cheaper price and asked him to bring rupees five lakh or rupees six lakh and when he took the cash, the accused stabbed him and escaped with booty. It is altogether different aspect that considering the medical evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge held that the deceased must have been died instantaneously at the spot or further must have been in a position of not able to speak on account of grave injuries received by him. While holding so, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the deceased was alive by the time P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed to the spot. While deciding this appeal, it is not within the provisions of this Court to decide as to the validity of the judgment in recording an order of acquittal under Section 302 of I.P.C. in the absence of any cross appeal. Therefore, the Court below on analyzation of the evidence disbelieved the case of the prosecution insofar as the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned. So, the scope of the appeal is confined to decide as to whether there is convincing evidence to show that the accused was found in possession of stolen cash of Rs.3,50,000/- in the manner as alleged by the prosecution? To prove the fact that the deceased left the house with cash, the prosecution examined P.W.4. In cross examination, she stated that she did not ask her father as to why he was going out with the money without being accompanied by any other member of the family. She denied that she is deposing false. 15. It is to be noticed that the case of the prosecution is that the deceased wanted to purchase gold at cheaper price from the accused than the market price. Hence, the so-called deal alleged to be arrived at between the accused and the deceased was not supposed to be revealed to anybody openly. This court has no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4 that her father left the house during night with cash. 16. To prove that the accused was found in possession of stolen cash, prosecution examined P.W.8. P.W.8 was the witness to the observation of the scene of offence and inquest. He was also cited as a witness to the arrest of the accused and recovery of stolen cash along with other articles. His evidence in substance is that on 11.07.2008 at 1-00 p.m., at request of police, he accompanied the police to Dwarapudi in a Jeep at Rellipeta, near Mosallacheruvu, Dwarapudi. They found one person. He was also cited as a witness to the arrest of the accused and recovery of stolen cash along with other articles. His evidence in substance is that on 11.07.2008 at 1-00 p.m., at request of police, he accompanied the police to Dwarapudi in a Jeep at Rellipeta, near Mosallacheruvu, Dwarapudi. They found one person. On seeking the police Jeep, he got baffled. Police arrested him and interrogated him, who disclosed his identity as that of the accused. Accused confessed that he would show the material objects, if they follow him. The accused lead them to cashew nut garden of Pulla Reddy at Vemulapalli. The accused went into some bushes there and collected a bag. There were two small plastic bags inside that bag. In one plastic bag they found one short hands shirt, one lungi and one knife. The knife was with handle. In other plastic bag, they found two bundles cash to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- in five hundred rupee denominations, four bundles of cash to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- in one hundred rupee denominations and another five bundles of cash one hundred rupee denominations. Totally there was cash of Rs.3,50,000/-. Inspector of Police seized the same under the cover of mahazarnama. During the cross examination he deposed that he wrote two or three mediators reports for the police. He wrote all the said reports. Having personally involved in the corresponding proceedings only, he could write it. He denied that he did not accompany the police to arrest the accused and the accused did not give any confession leading to recovery of the material objects. 17. Coming to the evidence of P.W.11, the investigating officer, his evidence insofar as the arrest and recovery of the stole cash is concerned, on 24.07.2008 at 12-30 p.m., on receipt of credible information, he summoned P.W.8 and Surampudi Ramakrishna. They proceeded to Dwarapudi village along with his staff and reached Rellipeta, near Mosallacheruvu. At about 1-00 p.m., they found one person, aged about 50 years there. On seeing them, he tried to escape. They surrounded him and held him and he interrogated him. On suspicion, he arrested him before the mediators. Pursuant to the confession made by him and especially relating to the fact that he would show the cash and other material objects, he led them. Ex.P.7 is the relevant portion. On seeing them, he tried to escape. They surrounded him and held him and he interrogated him. On suspicion, he arrested him before the mediators. Pursuant to the confession made by him and especially relating to the fact that he would show the cash and other material objects, he led them. Ex.P.7 is the relevant portion. Accused took them to the fields of Anaparthi Pullareddy at Gopalarao tank, Dwarapudi. He searched the bushes and collected a bag. He picked up M.O.7 to M.O.9. Accordingly, a report was drafted. Prior to that, he seized M.O.7 to M.O.9, at the same place. Thereafter, the accused was brought to the police station. During the course of cross examination, he denied that on 24.07.2008 he did not arrest the accused and the accused did not give any confession leading to the recovery of material objects. 18. P.W.8 being Village Revenue Officer was bound to assist the police. He cannot be branded as a stock mediator. There was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4 insofar as the aspect that the deceased left the house with cash. The evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.11 is quietly consistent. As rightly pointed out by the Court below that it was very difficult to plant such huge amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to implicate the accused. Nothing is elicited during the course of cross examination of P.W.8 and P.W.11 to disbelieve their testimony. The Court below believed the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.11 and came to a conclusion that the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was recovered at the instance of the accused and further believed the evidence of P.W.4 insofar as the fact that the deceased left with cash during the odd hours. Under the circumstances, this Court having analyzed the evidence on record carefully is of the opinion that there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the prosecution insofar as the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. is concerned. The prosecution by examining P.W.4 categorically proved the fact that the deceased left the house with cash. Under the circumstances, this Court having analyzed the evidence on record carefully is of the opinion that there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the prosecution insofar as the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. is concerned. The prosecution by examining P.W.4 categorically proved the fact that the deceased left the house with cash. It is altogether a different aspect that the prosecution failed to connect the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the accused, but, on that count itself, the accused cannot be exonerated of the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. When the recovery was effected pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused, it is for the accused to account for the possession of cash of Rs.3,50,000/-. According to Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a man who is in possession of stolen cash, soon after the theft is either the theft or as received the cash knowing it to be stolen unless he can account for his possession. This presumption is further strengthening the case of the prosecution. 19. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, categorically proved the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, in my considered view, rightly found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and rightly sentenced him. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, as such, the judgment, dated 21.06.2010 in Sessions Case No.265 of 2009 of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 411 of I.P.C. shall stands confirmed. 21. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court on or before 11.07.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant (accused) and to report compliance to this Court. 22. Registry is directed to send copy of the order along with original record to the Court below on or before 14.07.2023. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.