In a significant verdict, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the life imprisonment sentences of four men convicted for a 2013 murder and goat theft, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The bench found the chain of circumstantial evidence to be incomplete and unreliable.
Court's Verdict and Key Observations
A division bench comprising Justices K Suresh Reddy and Subbareddy Satti delivered the judgment on January 6, 2026, while hearing the appeals filed by the convicted individuals. The court explicitly stated that the prosecution could not place even a shred of material to connect the appellants with the offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 (common intention).
The bench directed the immediate release of the acquitted accused, provided they are not wanted in any other case, and also ordered a refund of any fines they had paid. The court underscored that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the recovery of stolen property, especially after a considerable delay.
Background of the 2013 Case
The case dates back to July 2013, when the body of Billa Mowlali, a goat herder, was discovered in a forest area of Guntur district. The prosecution's case was that five accused, acting with a common intention, murdered Mowlali and stole 20 goats belonging to his family.
In 2018, a sessions court convicted four of the accused for murder and theft, sentencing them to rigorous life imprisonment. One accused was additionally convicted under Section 411 of the IPC for dishonestly retaining stolen property. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the convicted men approached the High Court through separate criminal appeals.
Arguments Presented and Hostile Witnesses
During the appeal hearings, advocates representing the appellants, including Surepalli Madhava Rao, PSP Suresh Kumar, D Kodanda Ramireddy, and Ammaji Nettem, argued that the case was built entirely on weak circumstantial evidence. They pointed out that the prosecution could not prove critical links like the "last seen" theory.
A major setback for the prosecution was that several witnesses turned hostile, refusing to support the official narrative during the trial. The defence contended that the only circumstantial evidence was the recovery of the goats from the house of one accused nearly three months after the incident, which they argued was insufficient for a murder conviction.
Opposing the appeals, Additional Public Prosecutor Marri Venkata Ramana maintained that the recovery of the stolen goats, identified by the complainant in a test identification parade, was a strong incriminating circumstance that should lead to a presumption of guilt.
High Court's Final Ruling and Legal Precedent
After a thorough examination of the records, the High Court noted the absence of any eyewitnesses. It observed that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, which did not form a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
The court acquitted three of the accused of all charges, including murder and theft. The fourth accused was also acquitted of murder and theft charges, though his conviction under Section 411 IPC for retaining stolen property was upheld. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the bench concluded that "conviction under Sections 302 and 379 IPC cannot be sustained merely on the basis of recovery of stolen property," particularly when such recovery occurs after a long delay, making the prosecution's story improbable.
