JUDGMENT
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.
1. Initially there were seven accused in this case. The case against A-6 was separated as he was found absconding. The accused-appellant herein (A-1), A-2 to A-5 and A-7 were charged for an offence punishable under section 395 IPC. On evidence A-2 to A-5 and A-7 were acquitted of the said charge by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Sessions Case No. 232 of 1993, but only A-1 was found guilty of the said charge and therefore A-1 was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years.
2. The prosecution story can briefly be narrated as follows: That a-1 is a resident of stuvartpuram and belongs to a criminal gang. A-2 to A-7 are his associates. It is further stated by the prosecution that on the intervening night of 6–7–1991 all the accused went to poultry farm of P.W.1 in the outskrits of Kankipaduvillae and committed theft of cash, gold and silver ornaments at the point of knife. P.W.2 happened to be the wife of P.W.1 and gold ornaments from the person of P.W.2 were also taken away by the accused. P.W.1 gave a police complaint. During the course of investigation, A-1 to A-3, A-5 and others were arrested on 9–5–1991 at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. The accused-appellant herein alleged to have confessed the offence and the photostat copy of the mediators report is filed on record. It is further stated by the prosecution that when the accused-appellant herein was in police custody, he expressed his willingness to discover certain articles and his statement was recorded and in pursuance of the said statement, the accused-appellant herein alleged to have discovered M.Os.3, 6, 9 and 10 and a Citizen Wrist Watch, which was not marked, and they were recovered under the panchanama Ex.P-4. Again at the instance of the accused-appellant herein M.Os.1, 2, 4, 5 and one black Beeds Chain were recovered from the house of P.W.8 and they were attached under panchanama Ex.P-5. The recovered properties were alleged to have identified by P.W.1.
3. On arrest of the accused-appellant herein, he was put for identification. The identification parade was conducted by the III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada (P.W.7). It is alleged by the prosecution that P.Ws.1 to 3 identified A-1 and A-3 out of the suspects. Thus, on completion of investigation, P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, Gannavaram, filed the charge sheet.
4. In order to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution led the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 13. They produced certain documents and they were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-13.
5. The defence of the accused is of total denial.
6. The learned counsel Smt. K. sesharajyam appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant herein submitted at the Bar that the evidence led by the prosecution against the accused-appellant herein is not at all sufficient to hold him guilty of an offence punishable under section 395 IPC. The learned counsel pointed out that on the strength of complaint given by P.W.1, the offence was registered. Ex.P-1 is the first information report. P.W.2 happened to be the wife of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the father-in-law of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the panch witness for the scene of offence. P.Ws.5, 6, 8 and 10, who are recovery panch witnesses, did not support the prosecution. It was pointed out that as per the prosecution case when the accused-appellant herein was in police custody