Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Buaya Kurumala Kalvagadda Ramesh vs The State Of A.P., Rep.P.P., Anantapur ... on 21 February, 2019
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bail Sip: The Accused was directed to be released on Ball by the Order of Court Order datec: 19/2/2018 in LA.No. 1/2018 in Cra. 121442 ' HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN AQ SET PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR THE HON''BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1214 OF 2072 Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in S.6. Na 292 of 2011 dt.30/10/2012 on the file of the Court of the Additional! sessions Judge, Hindupur. Between: Buaya Kurumala Kalvagadda Ramesh, S/o.Chandrayudu Cloth Vendor, Kota Street, xa 1 Pedda Bazar, Puttapuarthi Anantapur District, . AppellantvAccused No. AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. through Inspector of Palice Puttapuarthi Urban PS. Anantapur District. ..RespondentiComplainant Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. T PRADYUMNA KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Judgment: THE HON BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C, PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THRE HON SLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATVANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1214 OF 20123 JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice C. Praveen Kumuer} Originally accused Nos.1] to 4 in Sessions Case Nog of 2011 on the hle of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 rfw 109 of Indian Penal Code {for short "LP.C."). By its judgment dated 30.10.2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w. 109 of 1.P.C., found accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section S302 of LPC. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay ai fine of Rs.i000/-, im default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the same accused No.1] preferred the presenti Appeal.
The gravamen of the charges against the accused is that on 03.02.2009 at 8.00 P.M., accused No.1, at the instigation of aceused Nos.2 to 4, is said to have caused the death of his wife- Vadde Lakshmidevi (the deceased), by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire.
The facts as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under:-
Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are residents of Puttaparthi Town, whereas accused No.3 is a resicdent of Diguvapalli Thanda near Kodikanda Check Post. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the friends of accused No.l. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and are es HALL & Mai CrLA.No 1214 of 2012 known to deceased and accused No.1. P.W.4 is sur of the awner of house, who let his house on rent to the deceased and aceused No.l. P.W.S is the wife of P.W.S, while P.W.6 is owner of the hotel, who took the deceased to the hospital m an ambulance. P.W.8 is the maternal uncle of the deceased and P.W.9 is the mother of the deceased, while P.W.10 is another daughter of P.W.9, P.\W.11 is the son of PW.10. P.Ws le and 13 are the son and daughter of the deceased respectively.
The deceased was given in marriage te one Gangadhar of Bathalapalli Village and out of their wedlock P.Ws.12 and 13 were born. After the birth of P.W.13, the husband of deceased deserted his wife and started Hving with some other lady. Later, the deceased started living at Yerrumulapalli Village along with her children, The deceased was doing cooli work and was also running a petty bunk. It is said that accused No.1 developed legal intimacy with deceased and both of them started staying at Puttaparthy. After sometime, accused No.1] got addicted to viees and started harassing the deccased by demanding money.
Qn the date of incident, there was a galata between the aceused No.l and the deceased with regard to gold and cash. Accused Nos.2 to 4 claimed to have been present there at the time of incident, but however, after they left, accused No.1 beat the deceased, poured kerosene and set her on fire. Immediately thereafter, the injured was shifted to Community Health Centre, Pemukenda, where P.W.23-Dr. Tyagaraju, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, examined her at about 11.30 P.M. and 3 os HACH & MSMJ CrlA.Mo 214 of 2012 issued Ex.P.15, the medical intimation. According tao P.W.21]- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penukonda, on receipt of medical intimation (Ex.P15), he proceeded to the Gavernment Hospital and identified the deceased, Lakshmidevi and found her with burn injuries. After ascertaining the mental condition of the infured and after obtaining the necessary certiication from the doctor, he recorded the statement of the injured. Ex. P.16 is the statement recorded by him, which commenced at 11.45 P.M. and concluded at 12.25 A.M. On the same day at about 11.25 P.M., P.W.22-Head Constable of Penukonda Police Station, received Ex.Pi5S- Medical Intimation from the Government Hospital, Penukenda fer recording the statement of injured. Immediately, he rushed to the Government Hospital and found the inpured tying with burn injuries. After recording the statement, he said to have read over the contents of the statement to the injured, to which she admitted the same to be true and then obtained left hand thumb impression of the injured. The statement recorded by him is placed on record as Ex.P1/. The said statement was said to have recorded by hirn from 11.40 P.M. to 12.10 A.M. He also ebtained endorsement of the doctor with regard to the mental state of the injured which is placed on record as ExX.PIS. According to him, the injured was conscious and coherent while recording the statement. At about 2.30 A.M. he received the death intimation of the injured which is placed on record as Es. P.1S. Basing on the intimation, he sent Exs.P.17 to P19 toa 4 HALLS & MIIVU Cr A.Moad2l4 of 20t2 Puttaparthy Urban Police Station on point of jurisdiction. Basing om the said statement, P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, Puttapar "thy Airport P.S., registered the same as a case in Crime Nea l2 ef 2009 for the offence punishable under Section GO2 IPC. Ee P21 is the FLLR. P.W.24 then preceeded to the scene of offence at about 8.00 A.M. and in the presence of Panchavatdars - P.W.17 and P.W.19, he seized (3) empty kerosene stove {i} burnt hairs (ii) burnt blouse pieces fiv} burnt petty coat piece (light blue colour} (v} burnt rose colour saree pieces and (vi) one silver basin under the caver of Es.P.22 the scene of offence observation Mahazar. He also prepared a rough sketch which is placed on record as Bs.P.23. He examined PWs.l io 3 and S and recorded their statements. From the scene of offence, P.W.24 procecded te the Government Hospital, Penukends and found the dead body in the mortuary. In the presence of blood relations of the deceased, P.W.20 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased from 10.00 A.M. ta 1.00 PLM. During imquest, he cmarnined P.W.9, mother of the deceased, and family members of the deceased. On 04.02.2009, PIW.23 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issucd Ex. P.20- Post Mortem Examination Report opining that the cause of death was due to Neurogenic and Hypebolaumic shock due to cxiensive burns. On 06.02.2009, while P.W.2+ was proceeding along with staff from Puttaparthy to Puttaparthy airport, on the way he found one person sitting an the bridge in front of Ujwala apartment main gate and on OH:
HAC] & MSM3 CrLA.NWod2i4 of 2012 seeing them he tried to escape. Suspecting the said person, he apprehended and identified him as accused No.J im this case. On «questioning, he said to have confessed about the commission of offence. After completing the formahties, he was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penukonda seeking judicial remand.
After collecting all the necessary documents, a charge sheet was laid against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, LOG r/w O4 [PC in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pemukonda. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 rfw 34 IPC. On appearance af the accused, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were culy furnished to the accused and on considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate committed the case, under Section 209 Cr.P.c., ta the Court of Session, Sessions Division, Anantapur, as the offence 1s punishable under Section S302 of LPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, where it carne to be numbered as Sessions Case No.292 of 2011.
On appearance of all the accused and on hearing both sides and considering the material brought on record, charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to them to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, 6 TIAL) ea MIDE CrLA.Nowd24 of 2012 in order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24, and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.23 and M.Os.1° to 6. Qut of the 24 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.l to 7, 14 to 39 did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. After completing the prosecution evidence, the acctused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which they demiec. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused except placing on record the contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 9 as ex. D1.
Basing om the two dying declarations recorded by the Head Constable and the learmed Magistrate, the trial Court while acquitting accused Nos. 2 to 4, convicted the acctised No.} and sentenced him as aforementioned. Challenging the said conviction and senterice, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant - accused No.l.
'The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the two dying declarations, [xs.P.16 and P.1%, are relicd upon to convict the accused No.1, and that it is very difficult to believe as to how both the dying declarations came to be recorded at the same time when the oral evidence is otherwise. He further pleads that the contents of two dying declarations, one recarded by the Magistrate and the other recorded by the Head Constable, not only proved that the same 7 HAC? & MSM] CrLA.Nol2l4 of 2012 are in violation of Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of Practice, but also indicates that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind to give statements.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that even if the dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable is eschewed from consideration, still, the clyinig declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate can be relied upon, since there is no animosity or ill-will for the Jearned Magistrate to speak falsehood against the accused. He further submits that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to taking out of a computerized statement in the laptop, must have been only for convenience and that no credence can be given to it, The only point that arises for consideration is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to convict accused No. 1- appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?
As stated by us earlier, all the material witnesses vis P.Ws.1l to 7, 14 to 19 did net support the case of prosecution and were declared hostile. The other witnesses, P.Ws.8 to 13 are the inquestdars, who took the injured to the hospital, and the blood relations of the deceased. They were examined to prove about the family life of the deceased and the alleged harassment by the accused. P.W.8, a resident of Yenumulapalti village, in his evidence, deposed that there was a galata between the accused No.| and the deceased, carlier to the incident in question, with regard to gold and cash and at that x HAC! & MSMi CrLhA. No.t2l4 of 2012 time accused Nos.2 to 4 were also present. After accused Nos.2 to 4 left the company of accused Ne.i, accused No.1 poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire with match-stick resulting in burn myjuries. Lmmediately, he shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Penukonda where she succumbed to death while undergoing treatment. Though in his evidence- in-chief, he stated as if he witnessed the incident, but the answers elicited in the cross examination falsifes the same. In the cross-examination, he admits that one Anand, C.1. of Police, came to his house on the following day and informed him about the said facts. Basing on the information given by the C.1. of Police, he disclosed about the incident to the police during his examination under Section 161 Cr.P.c. Therefore, we feel that no credence can be given to the version of this witness.
PLW.9 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, she depased about the marriage of the deceased with one Gangadhar, who deserted her, as he developed Ulegal intmacy with some other woman. Simce then, the deceased was staying with P.W.9 along with her two children at Yenumulapalli Village. it is said that the deceased was eking cut her hvelihood by doing collie work and was maintaining her two children. She was alse rumning a petty bunk. Subsequently, the deceased developed tHegal intimacy with accused No.} and both of them were staying near Puttaparthy Airport. It is her version that the deceased and accused No.1 happily hved together for some days and later disputes arose between them. Her 9 HAC] & MSM! CrLA.No.1214 of 2072 evidence further discloses that on coming to know about the incident through police, herself and family members rushed to the Government Hospital, Penukonda and found the deceased dead due to burn injuries. According to her, accused No.1 poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire. However, in the cross ¢xamination, she admits that the police came to her at 1.30 A.M, on the date of incident and informed her that all the accused caused burn injuries to her daughter and she WES taking treatment in a Government Hospital and asked her to ga over to Penukonda. From the above evidence, it is clear that her source of information with regard to the harassment of the deceased by the accused and the involvement of four persons in the commission of offence was only through police. Therefore, her evidence is only hearsay i.e., the information furnished by police at 1.30 A.M., pursuant to which, she proceeded ta the Hospital, P.W.10 is the sister of the deceased, who in her evidence, speaks about her sister developing illegal intimacy with accused No.l and about accused No.! pouring kerosene on the person of the deceased and = setting fire, Jeading to her death. According to her, on receipt of information, she rushed to the hospital and found her sister dead. Though she deposed that it was accused No.l, who poured kerosene on the deceased, but she is neither an eye witness to the incident nor did the deceased inform her about the incident. Her evidence is also silent as to the source of her information.
iy PPA a IDL CrhANo lie of 2012 PLW.11is the elder brother of the deceased, According ta him, the deceased was given in marriage to one Gangadhar of Bathalapalli and out of their wedlock P.Ws.i2 and 13 were born. After referring to the avocation and the livelinood of the deceased, P.W.11 deposed about the Wegal intimacy af the deceased with accused No.l and both of them living near Airport at Puttaparthy. It is said that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment for want of money and subsequently accused No.1 poured kerosene and set her on fire resulting in burn injuries. On coming to know about the same, he rushed to the Government Hospital, Penukonda and found his sister dead due to burn injuries. According te him, accused No.l is responsible for the incident. But as stated by us in the earlier paragraphs, he has neither witnessed the incident nor did the deceased inform him as to how she received burn injuries. Therefore, his evidence as ta the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence is only hearsay and in fact, the source of information for him, to speak about the involvement of accused No.l in the commission of olience, was also not disclosed.
PLWs.12 ancl £3 are th ~, ep children of the deceased, who are admittedly not eye witnesses to the incident, as they were in a hostel at that time. Both of them were brought to the house after the incident, where they were informed about the incident. These two witnesses speak about the deceased and accused No.i ceming to their school on Parents Day and_ the VW HAC] & MSM] CrhA.No.l2Z14 of 2012 relationship between accused No.1 and the deceased. From the evidence of these witnesses, referred to above, it is clear that none of them have seen ihe incident and no oral dying declaration was made to them by the deceased. The manner in which the imcident took place came to their knowledge only through inmates. Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence of these witnesses is of no help to the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.
The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the two dying declarations recarded by P.Ws.21 and 22 vide Exs.P.16 and P.17 respectively. It is to be noted here that a comment has been made stating that both the dying declarations could not have been recorded at the same time by two different authorities, more sa, when the evidence clearly discloses that each of them were present when the said dying declarations were recorded by each of the authorities. In order to appreciate the same, it is to be noted that immediately after admission of the deceased in Government Hospital, Penukonda, Ex.P1.15 - medical mtimation carne to be sent to the palice as well as to the Magistrate for recording the dving declaration of the deceased. Pursuant to which, both the learned Magistrate as well as the Head Constable of Penukonda Police Station proceeded to the Hospital for recording the dying declaration. Ex.P.16, recorded by the Magistrate, shows that the recording of statement was commenced at 11445 P.M. on 03.02.2009 and concluded at 12.25 A.M. on 04.02.2009. Ex.P.17, which is rt HACT & MSMI Crh A Mo i2l4 of 2072 recorded by P.W.22-Head Constable of Penukonda Police Siation also shows that he commenced recording of the statement of the injured at 11.40 P.M. on 03.02.2009 and conchaided at 12.10 A.M. on 04.02.2009.
If we see the evidence of P.W.21, he deposed that he took all precautions before recording the staternent of injured under Ex.P.16, and except himself, duty doctor, attender and duty nurses, none else were present while recording the statement, which aceording to him commenced at 11.45 P.M. and concluded at 12.25 A.M. om the intervening night of 03/04.02.2009. That being the position, it is difficult to beheve as to how the Head Constable could have commenced recording the statement of the injured at 11.40 P.M. and concluded the sate at 12.10 A.M., when the evidence of P.W.21 clearly shows that except the persons referred to above mone else were present.
On the other hand, if the evidence of P.W.22-Head Constable is looked into, he, in his cross examination, admits that he started recording the dying declaration at 11.40 P.M. and coneluded at 12.10 A.M. and that he, duty nurse, injured and duty doctor were alone present while recording the statement of injured, when the injured disclosed her identity as Vadde Lakshmidevi. From the evidences of P.Ws.21 and 22, it is evident that both of them commenced recording of dying declaration af the same time and concluded with a variance of five minutes. The evidence of P.W.21 excludes the presence of 3 OHACI & MSM) CrLA.Wo.l214 of 2012 PIW.22, while the evidence of P.W.22 excludes the evidence of PW.21, but the timings recorded on the two dying declarations are the same. Therefore, a doubt arises about the genuineness or otherwise of these two dying declarations.
At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that even if the statement recorded by the Head Constable is eschewed for consideration, but still there remains the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, which can be believed to base a conviction. It is no doubt true that even if one dying declaration inspires confidence in the mind of the Court, the same can be based to convict the accused. In fact, nothing is suggested to the Magistrate to shew that he has animosity or grudge or ill-will to speak falsehood against the accused. But, strangely, his evidence is not inspiring confidence to place reliance on the said dying declaration for more than one reason. According to him, after being satisfied with regard to the mental condition of the deceased, and after the duty doctor certified the mental condition of the injured Lakshmidevi, he recorded the statement of the injured. In the cross examination, P.W.21 admits that Ex.P.16 is a printed form and also admits how he took it from his laptop. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant pertion, which reads as under:
"his frue that the injured Lakshinidevi stated before me her marnage has been performed 10 years age, and she further stated before me that her parents are no more. Tt ia trae that fix.P.16 is a printed Porm. The witness volunteers he took print out fram his lap tap."
La HACI & MSM CroA.No. 124 of 2012 From the admission made by him, it is clear that he took the printed form from his laptop, on which doctor is said to have signed. On perusal of the said dying declaration, which is placed on record as Ex.P.i6, the printed form reads as under:
"Present: P.I3.V. Koteswara Rao Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda I reeerved. a requisition om O3.02.09 at 11.35 mid-night from Gevi., Pospital, Penukonda to record the Dying Declaration. of Saat.lakshind Devi w/a Rarmesh, aged 26 years, resident of Puttaperthy Mandal, adyrutted in Govt., Mospited. Perrukonda. Then [ irnmeciately mashed to Govt., Hospital, alone with rny attender. The patient is identified by the Duty Medical Officer in Female Ward in Govt., Hospital, Penukonda.
Proceedings commernced at 11.45 p.m. Qi: What is your name?
Ans: Lakshnv Devi 2: What is your husband's meme?
Ans: Ramesh O.o: Which is your place?
Ars: My place is Puttaparthy.
G4: When your trharriage took place?
Ars: About LO years back.
.5: Low many children you are having?
Ans; One son, One daughter. Daughter aged 9 years, son aged 8 years. Deughter's name is Anjali and son's name is Balu.
Q.6: Are you having parents?
Ans: Bath were died.
2.7) De vou icnow who ] am?
a: Ne ti os. 7] Cem OED.
Certification by the Duty Mecical O ny xf anal in a fit atate of mind to The Fatient is caotuscious, cohei give statement, mm Sd/- xn xx 12.10 acm. 4.2.09 Name of the Doctotr:
Designation : Civil Asst., Surgeon Date: 4.2.09, CAC Penukencla Lrecorded the above prelirainary criestion and answers and | ara satished that the patient is comscious, coherent and in fit state of rund te give staterment and the Duty Medical Officer eenrtifed the same.
My husband used te drink and beat me. He used to bring others to my house, to test that | am of good character or not.
Unable to bear the torture of mv husband, om 1s of this month twent to the house of my co-daughter-in-law. Today evening about 6.00 pum. To came to Puttaparthy to take my clothes. When Dwas packing my clothes about 8.00 p.m. in the night, my busband came ta me and asked me to give Rs.2,000/-. Along with hiro Pothulaiah and Babi alsa came to my house. I tolel that f was mot having money. Then my husband caught fa HAC] & MSM CrLA.No. 1214 of 2012 hold of mvy tuft, threw me on the floor and hit my head to the floor. Poured kerosene from the stove in the house and ht re with mateh stick and left the house by closing the doors along with Poethulaiah and Bahu. They went in the auto af Pothulaiah. Ne is harassing me for the past ane year.
Lt recorded the statement of the deponerit verbatirn and read over the same and explained to her which she admitted as true and correct and [ then obtained her LTI.
LT of Lakshmi Devi.
Certification of the Duty Dector.
The patient is conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind througheut the recording of the statement.
iN Sd/-xx ux 12.10 a.m. 4.2 Naine of the Doctor: Dr. R.Thyagaraju Designation: Civil Asst., surgeon Tate: 4.2.09, 12.25 a.m. At the time of recording the proceedings, no one was present except the patient, myself, my attender, the Duty Doctor and the Duty Nurse.
Proceedings concluded at 12.25 a.m. on 4.2.09. Sd/- PV UB Soteswara Reo Jocdl., Magistrate of First Class, Pennkonda."
After filling the cantents in the printed form, the doctor is said to have signed. It is to be noted here that his (PW.21T's) evidence is silent as to the presenee of printer in the hospital. lt is neither his case that he was carrying a printed form mor it is his version that he had utilized the printer in the hospital for taking a print out. One does not know as to how he could obiain a print out from his laptop in hospital, Apart from that, the endorsement of the duty doctor must be only after seeing the injured and on being satisfied with regard to her ht state of mind. But, the print out already has the certification of the doctor stating that "the patient is conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give statement", under which the doctor signed. Therefore, there was nothing which a doctor had to verify before making crdorsement. He only signed on such ib HAC) & MDM CrLA No. f214 of 2012 endorsement, which, in our view, is not only contrary te the Rule 33 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, but the practice of this nature requires to be condemned. Doubt arises as to whether the doctor examined the patient and applied his mind ar whether he simply signed on the print out taken by P.W.21. lf this dying declaration is cxchided from consideration, there is no other material to conneet accused No.l with the crime. There is one other reason to doubt the contents of the dying declaration and also to show that the deceased was not in fit state of mind to give statement. The contents of the dying declaration, recorded prior to the certification of Doctor, show that her husband name is Ramesh and that both her parents died, but the prosecution examined the mother of deceased as P.W.9. lt has come on record through the evidence of PLW.9 and others that Ramesh is not her husband, but her paramour, while one Gangadhar is her husband and the two children were born through him. Therefore, taking inte consideration the totality of the circumstances viz., the manner in which the certificate of dactor was obtained, by taking a print out from laptop and not explaining as to how the print out was taken in the Hospital and the inconsistent answers given by the deceased, we feel that it may not be safe to convict accused No.t basing on the sole dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, since the other dying declaration recorded by the _ Head Constable cannot be accepted as no explanation is given as to how he could record the dying declaration between 11.40 HAC & MSI Crh AINeo. det of eo PM, and 12.10 A.M. when the Mapistrate was present im the haspital at the same time recording the staternent of the inmpurect.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the convirtion sre sentence imposed against the appeclant-accused No, t far the offence punishalle under Section SO2 of £P.C., mm Sesaions Case Na. 2G? of QOL on the file of Acdditiomal Sessiamns Fudge, Hindupur, by pudement cated SO.10.2012, are set aside.
The appellant-accused Now? is acquitted anc Ihe shall be set at Wheriy forthwith, Whe ts not required in any other case. Nis bal bands shall stard cancelled, Cursequently ,misectianenus applications ponding if any, shall alsa atamel clasect.
SO/- P. RAMARRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR TRUE CaOPy SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri C.Praveen Kumar) Te, wade Oo a wot ay 8 10.0ne OC to SRE T. ah wrghh age '. = ea ; woe r Ns cage TPE COLON ORCS Calera iFor his Lordships Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy} {For his Lordships Kind Perusal) The Additional Sessions Judge. Hindupur, Anantapur District (With records ary) The Station Mouse Officer, Puttaparthi District.
Urban Police Station, Anantha The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Penukonda, Anantapur CHstrict.
Two CCs to the Public Frosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (OUP) SLUR. Copies.
The Under Secretary Union of India, Affairs, New Delhi.
The Secretary, Advocates Association (AP) Amarayath.
Two C.D. Copies The Director General of Police, Vijayawada, Rnshria District, PRADYLIMMA KUMAR REDDY, Acivacate [OPUC] fs go me , a $3 XN 3 WY MAY AL al @PRo, Sector, Hh Gounke oF > hair Abe Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Library. High Court Bulidings, HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2019 ORDER CRLA.No.1214 of 2012 RS = s ger gas ao ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ~ >A, 5 8 se sv § = s g = s § § x x 8 3 3 oN 8 s R SAH 8 s SQQQnnnnnss y.
x. SS yy ATT TS ANE AAs :
gas s ee x sss ¥ \ Ses 8 ger 8 x s 8 s = yi 8 & s § 3 a = os Ss + NM Sak * SSN, x FF FS gem sseCi«N x & ss WS 2S s & ' § FieFVY 3 § e \ § § :
Fr § woe F FF x os -
&vr™ 8 Na & vo