Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Morigondi Sampurna vs The State Of A.P. on 26 February, 2019
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN PRESENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 939 OF 2012 Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.c. against the Order/Judament made in 5.C.No.25 of £012, dated 13.07.2012 on the file of the Court of the Vi Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur. Between: Morngondt Sampurna, W/o. Venkateswariu, . Appellant/Accused No.4 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. » Respondents/Complainant Counsel for the Appeliant: SREY. BALAJI Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN RUMAR AND THE HON'SLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.939 OF 2012 JUDGMENT:
(Fer the Hon'ble The Acting Chie} Justice C. Praveen. Kumar) Assailing the conviction and sentence imposed in Sessions Case No.25 of 2011. 0n the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur, Prakasam Districi. dated 13.07.2012, wherein accused No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 af the Indian Penal Code (or short "lLP.c.") and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,Q00/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for (wo months, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fime of Rs.S00/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonmend for one month, respectively, the present appeal came to be filed under Section S74{2) of Cr.pP.c. by the appell nt-aceused Na.l.
Originally two accused were tried on two charges -- the first charge was under Section 302 r/w. Sec.84 of IPC and the second charge was under Section 201 r/w. See.34 of LP.C, While acquitting accused No.2 of bath the charges, convicted accused No.1 as referred to above.
The substanee of both the charges against accused Nos.} and 2 is that on 07.09.2011] at 12.380 hours in Ekalavya Colony, Markapur, in the house of sister of accused No.1, both the accused caused the deceased boy Yarumani Venkata Siva Prasad, aged about 9 years, by throttling his neck and later poured kerosene aver the body of the eee deceased and set him fire with a match stick. to screea away the evidence, 'Phe facts as culled out from the evidence of prosecution WIERESSESs are as under:
POW. is the father, PW.2 is the mother, P.W.3 is the grand miother (mother of P.W.2) and P.W.4 is the neighbour of the deceased, who were examined to speak about the circumstances, relied upon by the prosecution. P.W.1. who is the father of the deceased. in his evidence deposed that he is eking out his livelihood by wong coclie work. According toa him, he used to go to coolie work at 6.00 A.M. in the morning and return home at 9.00 F.M. On the date of incident, at about 2.30 P.M. while he was attending his work. ane Ramesh (not examined) telephoned to the water vehicle driver informing about the death of the deceased as he was set fire after pouring Kerosene. lninediately, PW. rushed to his house. situated in Ekalavva Colany, Markapur, and noticed his sors dead body burnt to ashes, in the middle room of his heuse. He alse observed gathering of all his neighbours at his house. On the same day at about 4.00 P.M. he lodged a report before PW 19 - Sub-Inspector of Police. Markapur Town Police Station, basing on which, P.W.19 registered a case against PWL2 and accused No.l in Crime No.152 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Seclions 309, 201 rfwe.34 of LP.C. and issued Ex.P-f@ PLR. Purther investigation in this case was taken up hy P.W.20 ~ the Inspectar of Police. Markapur Circle. He proceeded to the scene of offence and in the presence of PWL15 ~ Makam Notaiah. VERO. he prepared Ex P-1l the scene of offence chservation report. He naticed the dead bedy bying in supine position. He also noticed a vreen colour Kerosene can, a maich-bow ary] half burnt mat. on which the dead body was Iving, He also got photographed the scene of "4 re) HACT & MSM CoLApmert G40 IO offence and prepared Ex.P-19 the rough sketch of the scene of offence. As ft was late in the evening, he returned to his office by posting a psuard at the scene of offence. On the next day morning, he again visited the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and blood relatives of the deceased. During inquest, he examined P.W.1, P.W.S., P.W.4 and others. Al the witnesses unanimously opined that the deceased tight have been killed by P.W.2, mother of the leccased or accused No.} or their pararmour. After completing the inquest, he sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government Arta. Nospital, Markapur for autopsy. PW.17-Dr. S.Ravindra Reddy, C.A.5, yovernment Area Hospital, Markapur, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Exs.P-16 and P-17 preliminary and final post-examination reports.
On 09.09.2011 at about 3.30 P.M., PLW.15 ~- Makam Botaiah, along with accused No.l care to the office of P.W.20 -- Inspector of Police, and disclosed that accused No.l approached him at 12.00 Noon and made a confession admitting her guilt. After recording her confession, P.W.15 brought accused No.1 along with Ex.P-13 the extra-judicial confession statement of accused No.1 recorded by him to the Police Station. In the presence of mediators, P.W.20 interrogated the accused No.1 and cross-checked the contents of Ex.P-13, wherein she reiterated the confession made by her belore POW.LLS. P.W.20 seized a black colour cell phone-M.OQ.1 from accused No.l. He also recorded the statement of P.W.15, who produced accused No.l before him at 3.50 P.M. on 09.09.2011. On the same day at about 4.50 P.M. he received credible information about the moverrents of accused. No.2. After securing the mediators, he proceeded £6 Rayavaram in their jeep. where a person was running La HACE. MSM 3 yD CrbAppeal_ away arr seeing them, On suspicion, the said person was apprehended, who disclosed his name and identity as accused No.2. On interrogation. he is alleged to have confessed about the commission of offence. Basing on the confession of accused Nos. 1 and 2. the mame of P.W.2 was deleted from the array of accused, Further investigation was done by P.W.21 K.V Raghavendra, Inspector of Police, Markapur Circle. After verifying the investigation done by POW. 20 and after receipt of RFSL repert etc, which were placed on record as Exs.P-20 ta P-23, PW v21 laid charge-sheet. against accused Nos. } and 2 before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, which was taken on file as PRC.No.a& of "O11, who alter complying with Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Sessions Division under Section 209 af CrP.C. as the offence under Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session, On committal, the same came to be numbered us Sessions Case Ne.25 of 2011.
Sasing on the material available on record. charges under Sections 302 r/w.dd of LPC and Sectian 201 rfw.34 of LPC. apainst accused Nos. i and 2 were trated. read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
To substantiate its case, ihe prosecution examined PAWS. 1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-23 and M.Os.1 to 5.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nas. 1 and 2 were examined under Section S13 Cr.P.C.. with reference to the incriminating circumelances appearing against therm, in the evidence af the prosecution witnesses, to which they denied. But, however, they did not adduce ary oral or d actuneniary evidence in support of their plea.
HACT& MSM) Crh Append 930 2art Out of 21 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.2, 3, 4. 5, 6,8. 9, 10 and 12 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Relying woon the evidence of P.Ws.t, 5, 7, 11 and 15, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur. while acquitting accused No.2 for the offences of which he was charged, convicted the accused No.t for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and @01 of LPC. and sentenced) her as aforementioned. Challenging the same, the present appeal carie to be fled by the appellant - accused No.1.
The main ground urged by Sri Y. Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.i, is that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not form chain of events connecting the accused No.1 with the crime. According to him. all the material witnesses, including P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. He further pleaded that there is absohitely THD legal evidence on record to shew that accused Nos.1 and 2 were present in the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the time of the incident. In se far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the evidence of P.W.15 cannot be considered, since he acted as panch witness in all the proceedings im this case, namely the scene of offence observation report, inquest report, arrest of accused and seizure of M.U.1.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State while supporting the judgment of the trial Court would contend that the evidence brought on record, more particularly, the evidence of P.W.S and P.W.7 is sufficient to canvict the aceused No.l. He took us through the evidence of PW. and P.W.7 and pleaded that there is no reason or justification to disbelieve their evidence. more so, the evidence af P.AW.5, who is a child witness.
6 HACE & MSM) CTLAppeal G29 3) The pobat that arises for consideration in this appeal is. whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved ancl HP proved whether they are sufficient to base the conviction of the ACCUSER No. 1?
Admittedly there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. ft is to be seen -vhether the clreumistantial evidences relied upon by the prosecution are sufficient to connect the accused No.) with the crime.
The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged motive lor commission of offerice. namely, that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were seen while they were in compromising position by some of ihe witnesses, whe in-turn informed about the same to P.Ws.1 and 2.
In order to prove the same. the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.LL, who, in his evidence calegorically stated that, having noticed! frequent visits of accused No.2 to the house of P.Ws. Il and 2 for the sake of accused No.l and flict intimacy between them, he is said to have admonished accused No.1 about ten days prior ta the incident and also cam plained about the sare to PW.2. According to P.W.11, he requested P|W.2 to send accused Not fram the house as it is a residential area and such things are not permissible. The sister of accused No.1] (PAW .2) promised! 'iim ta sen accused No.1 from her house shortly. However, though P.W.1Li, in his evidence-in-chiel, spoke about accused Nos. 1 and 2 taichalging in sexual activity/ maintaining illicit relationship, but. in. the cross- examination, he admits thal had rol seen accused Nos. 1 and 2 participating in the sex and nobady com plained to him about accused Nas. 1 are 2.
Purther, PW. in his cross-examination admits that he never informed before the police or in Ex.P-1 about seeing accused Nos} HAR & MSM) eh ppeal S30 20 12 and 2 in his house together ten days prior to the occurrence etricl about the assurance given by his wife to take care of accused No.l. On the other hand, he admits that accused No.1 used to stay with her husband and in-laws at Narasayapalem and that accused No.1 and her husband did not obtain any divorce. Ne further actmits thet, tl date, he is not aware as to the exact reason. for the death of the deceased, Therefore, the motive which is sought to be established by the prosecution ic. accused Neos. 1 and 2 having iheit relationship and the ineident im question took place due ta P.W.1 admornishing them is not established by any cogent material. More so, as PWS to whom P.AW.i informed about the said illicit relationship did not suppert the prosecution case anc she was treated hostile by the prosecution.
The next circumstance, which is sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, is the theory o f accused being jast seen with the deceased before the commission of offence, P.\W.1 who is the father ot the deceased, in his evidence deposed, that since five months prior to the date of incident, accused No.l was staying with them along with her daughter after undergoing operation. It is his evidence that by the time he rushed bome, om receipt of information about death of the deceased, his wife-P.W.2 and accused No.l were present im the hese, as P.W.2 did not go to coolic work on that day. The reason given by P.W.1 for his wife mot attending the coolic work was to present @ saree to accused No.1 while sending her to her in-laws house. The evidernce- in-chief of PAV. 1 does not categorically establish the presence of accused No.2 in his house, but it only speaks about his wite- PLW2 and accused No.1] being present in the house. That is why, im the first information report ancl also im thevinquest report, & SUS PlOI]FL WES entertained against P.W.2 and accused No.1. Having exchided P.W.2 MACE & MSM} Urb Appeal 8:
from the array of accused, one cannot conchusively say that it was accused No} who was responsible for the incident. Thin gs would have been different had there been no other person except accused No.l in the house. However, in the cross-examination, PW.1 admits that he never stated before the police during the course of tivestigation or im the Ex. 1 about the presence of accused No.l in the house, since five months prior te the occurrence af incident. He further admits that he never stated before the police or in x.p-1] about someone informing him about pouring of kerosene an his son and setting him on fire. He further admits that, he did not state before the police about his wife ~ P\W.2 net altending the coolie worl on that day as she planned te present 4 saree to accused No.l. He further admits that he did mot state before the police, that he is sus pecting the character af His wife. However, accordin # to him, accused No] was Staying in Narasayapalem with her in-laws.
POW. 2. whe is the wife of PAV. and who Was said ta be present in the house at the time of incident, did not Support the prosecution ease and was declared hostile. Her evidence is totally different fram what PW.L stated in his evidence. According to her, she was never in the house on that day and that she has gone to Markapur to purchase saree, POW.3, whois mother-in-law of PAW.) and mother of PW_2) alse dicl mot support the case af prosecution and was declared hostile. PAW.4 in his evidence speaks about flames emanatin g irom the house of the deceased and on hésari ng the shouts of the women folk of the colony, he came out and proceeded towards the house of P\WOL. He is said to have informed the relatives about the mecident. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution.
Q HACS & MSM CrbSppeal oe Buy?
P.W.5 is a child witness and a close associate of the deceased. He was aged about 9 years as on the date of giving evidence. After being satisfied with regard to mental fitness and capacity to understand the Court proceedings, the Court proceeded to record his evidence, He, in his evidence, deposed that he knew accused No.) and the deceased and had played for sometime with the deceased on the day of incident. He had seen the deceased and his sister entermg into their house and purchasing ice creams at about 1-30 p.m. At about 2:30 p.m on hearing galata near the house of deceased, rushed towards the said place and found the deceased being killed by somebody by setting him on fire. He netther noticed Un. parents of the deceased nor spoke about the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 at the scene of offence. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution.
In so far as P.W.7 is concerned, she, in her evidence deposed that she has seen accused No.2 entering the house of deceased on the date of incident. At about 1:00 p.m she found smoke emanating from the house of the deceased. According to her, on seeing the flames, she came out of the house ancl founcl) accused Nos.] and 2 camming out from the house and proceeding in different directions. As her baby eried, she went inside the house and thereafter. through neighbours came to know that the deceased was being killed by accused Nos.t anc 2, In the crass-examination, she admits that she did not state before the police about noticing accused No.2 coming out of the house of the deceased along with accused No.1 and proceeding in different directions. She also did not state before the police about the acquaintance al accused Not with accused No.2. She further admits that she did not state before the police about noticing accused Nod entering or coming out of the house. From the evidence of this HACES& MSM rl aAppeal G49 2012 withiess, lis very clear that in the earlier shatements, she never spoke about seeing af accused Nos.1 and 2 coming out of the house of the deceased and proceeding in different directions. Therefore. the evidence of this witness docs not conclusively establish the presence of accused Nos.l anc 2 in the house at the time of incident.
The evidence of other witnesses relied upon by the prosecution are P.Ws.li and 13. P.W.11 is a resident of Bommilingam village and he knew the deceased, P.Ws.1. 2. accused Nos. I and 2. [n his evidence, lie deposed about the trequent visits of accused No.2 to the house af PWs.l and 2 for the sake of accused No.1 and about P.W.1 informing him about illicit intimaey between accused Nos.i and 2. He further recpaested P.W.2 to send away accused No.l from. her house saving that it was a residential area and such things are not permissible, According to him. accused No.1 joined P.Ws.1 and 2 and stayed there lor a continuous period af five months prior to the eceurrence Of the incident. Or hearing about ihe death of the deceased, he came and noticed the dead body. Me further siates that, he dicl not observe the presence of the persons and that he does riot know who killed the deceased as he was not in their colony during morming hours om that day. From the evidence-in-chief of this witness, it is clear thai if is silent as to the presence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the house of the deceased or seen them near the place of inecidert. He did mot speak about witnessing accused Nos.l and 2 entering the hese of the deceased. Therefore, his evidence, which was relied upon by the prosecution to prove the illicit intimacy between aceusecd Nos. i and 2. cannot be acceptecl as obeerved by us earlier, PAWS is the only other witness who was examined to apeak the theory of accused being last seen in the campany of the deceased.
HACI & MSMI CyLAppeal 2h 2012 He, in his evidence deposed that on 07.09.2011 at about S:00 a.m he along with accused No.2 went ta the factory for attendmg packing work. At about LO:45 a.m, when he and his colleagues came out to have tea near the lea stall, accused No.2 received a telephone call. On receipt of the phone call, accused No.2 left towards Ekalavya Colony by saying that he will come and join later, but did not disclose anything, The evidence of this witness, in cur view, does not establish any connection of accused No.1] with the incident proper. As per the evidence of this witriess, he along with accused No.2 went to their factory at 8:00 avm where accused No.2 received a phone call at 1o45 a.m while having a tea. On receipt of the phone call, accused No.2 left tawards Ekalavya Colony saying that he would came and join tater. The eviderice of this witness does not indicate as to the person from whorl accused No.2 received the phone call and also as to the place where he went in Ekalavya Colony. Therefore, this evidence of P.W.13 does mot establish the theory of accused and deceased being last seen tapether alive soon before death. In fact, his evidence docs mot refer to the place where the deceased was at the time of the frieident.
From the evidence of the witnesses referred fo above, it can sately be conchided that they are wholly unreliable and based on such testimony, it may not be proper for us to hold accused No.l guilty, more so, when the other circumstance, namely, motive is not established, The only other circurnstance left is the extra judicial confession made by accused No.l before PAV.IS. P.W.1S is no other than the Village Kevermie Officer of Markapur, who was working there since last four years. According to him, on O98 :.09.201] at about 11:00 a.m, aceused No.l is said to have approached him and made a coression admitting her guilt, which cantevto be recorded under Ex.P-13 and HACE S CriAnpual 430° Lhereafier. along with the accused No.1. a report was handed over to the police, It is to be noted that, though P.W.IS in lis evidence speaks about the extra judicial confession made by accused No.1, but however, his acimussiens in the cross-examination establish that he Was a total stranger, It would be appropriate to exiract the relevarit admissions in his cross-examinaiion, in his own words, which are as under {doe not have prior acquaintance with A-1. in ow service 1 didi net help to A-l and her fienily members personally any time. For the first lime f carne to know the identity of A-l and about her relationship with deceased boy's family on OU.O09.2011, 1 did not prepare any reugh note. I directly recorded the confession of A.1. In four or live cases belonging to Markapur Town P.S. | reeordecl extra jucticial confession......... * From the admissions made by P.W.15. two things pop up, namely, accused No.l was a stranger to P.W.15 and secondly he was a stock witness of Markapur Town Police Station. Apart from that, even in the present case. he acted as a mediator to the observation of scene of offerme, inepiest report. panch for seizure of M.Os.1 to 5 and alsa for arrest of the accused. Therefore, it is improbable to believe that accused No.l. who is «a stranger and wha has no prior acquaintance with P.WLES. would have gone to him and made an extra judicial confession admitting her guilt.
While dealing with the evidentiary value and reliability of extra judicial conlession. the Apex Court. in Vilay Shankar v. State of Haryana! held as follows:
OES. Principles in respect of evidentiary value and reliability of extra-judicial comlession have been sumenarized by this Court in Sahadevan v. State of T.N@ which reads as under:
"2015p 1S soe had "@) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itsell. ft has to be examined by the court with grester care and caution.
fii} It Should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. fifi} It shoulel inspire conlidence.
liv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supperted by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution eviderice, iv} For an extra-judicial confession te be the basis of conviction, it should net suffer from eny material discrepancies and inherent improbabilitics.
(vi} Such statement essentially bas to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law."
The Apex Court, in Kala v. State through Inspector of Polices, while discussing the law with regard to extra-judicial confession, observed as follows:
"In Sahadevan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (referred supra}. it has been observed that extra-judicial confession is weak piece of evidence, Before acting upon it the Court must ensure Uhat the sare iaspires confidence and if is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab? Ht has beer observed that extra-judicial confession requires great deal of care and caution before accepizmice. There should be no suspicious circumstarices surrounding it. In Pakkirisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu' it fas been observed that there has to be independent corroboration for placing any reliance upen extra-judicial confession. In Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadw® it has been observed that reliability of the same depends upon the veracity of the witnesses Lo whom it is mace. Siesilar view has beer expressed in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram', in which this Court tras firther observed that witress musi be unbiased and not even remotely initnical to the accused. In Alokenath Dutta v. State of West Bengal® it has been observed that the main features of comession.
are required to be verilied. In Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan® *Qas7T) & SCC USS *TIGS_ G6 SCO LOR . Li 230 SOLO) To SOC G4.
HACHS Crh Appent 92 it has been observed that extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by sare other material on record. In Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathed v. State of Gujarat) it has been observer that in the case of retracted confession ii is unsafe for the Court tc reby on it. In Vilay Shankar v. State of Haryana?! this Court has followed the decision in Sahadevan's case {supra}.
From the judgment in Kala v. State through Inspector of Police. (supra). il is clear that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and it has to be examined by the Courts with greater care and caution, However. if the extra-judicial confession is the basis for corvicelion, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. Further, extra judicial confession statement alone carmot be made the basis to confirm the conviction, wher if is doubthul or when if is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
Therefore, in view of the cuidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the judgmenis referred supra, the extra judicial confession made belore PAWS ~ the Village Revere Officer can be accepted, if it is fourid reliable. But, in the tastant case, we tind that, it may not be sale lo act on the alleged extra judicial confession made by accused Nod before P.W.1S for the reasons aforementioned. In fact, it is to be noted that, at a particular stage, P.W.15 was also declared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross-examined. Viewed from any angle, we cdo not fac any reason to accept the evidence of PW LIS as an independent wittress.
Having regard to the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution bailecl to establish the guill of the appellant ~ accused No.l for the offerices prunishable under Sections S62 and 201 of LPC. for whieh she wag convicted, and as such the judgment of the HACE ®& MSM Crh Appeal 939 2065 lower Court cammot be sustained and the same is liable to be set asicde. .
fn the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-accused No.1 Morigondi Sampurma W/o.Venkateswarlu, for the offences punishable under Seectioris 302 and 201 of LP.C.. in Sessions Case Nc.25 of 2012 en the fle of the Vi Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur, Prakasam District, by judgment dated 13.07.2019, are set aside. The appellant-accused No.1 is acquitted and she shall be set at liberty forUwith. if she is not required in aay other case.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending ifanv, shall SD/- P. RAMAKRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR HTRUE COPY SN :
SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri C.Praveen Kumar) To, (For his Lordships Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy} (For his Lordships Kind Perusal)
1. The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court}, Markapur.,
2. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, Prakasam District.
mu te oon The Station House Officer, Markapur Town Police Station, Markapur,Prakasam District. .
The Superintendent, Central Jail, Cuddapah.
The Director General of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (OUT) YL.R. Copies.
The Under Secretary Union of india, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.
8. The Secretary, Advocates Association (AP) Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi.
10. One CC to Sri Y. Balaji, Advocate (OPUC)
14. Chp N Two ©.D, Copies.
HIGH COURT DATED:26/02/2019 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.939 of 2012 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL a a vas fe?
sf "ae a 'Ao ay a Ss S sy ss & XY § s x 8 § s 8 sor 8 § Fw ' SF oor , Ss $ s ERASER, aa ~ SANA gas Rss § as x aa x 8 ws aaa? X we § Bsr x s ys Sg Fy SS 88K § Nes £& § '\.
PANY af SS € § Sof 3 we = SS sss Ff s § = Ger poe" KF Ls & : g -
"
ar, A x 4 . i i= Wheel Lge! mh 4 ' V ws cg VR YA PYM UNE *, oy t NN