1 APHC010343732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 7234 & 7622 OF 2025 Criminal Petition No:7234 of 2025 Between: 1. VELURI SATHISH KUMAR NAIDU, S/O. SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 29, R/O. D.NO. 4-20, SETIN THANGAL, KURCHIVEDU, NARASINGARAYANIPETTA, CHITTOOR DISTRI ...PETITIONER/VICTIM AND 1. SRIRAM CHANDRASEKHAR ALIAS CHINTU, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 45, R/O. D.NO.28-761/1, KANNAIAH NAIDU COLONY CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 2. GOVINDASWAMY SRINIVASAIAH VENKATACHALAPATHI, MUIBHAGAL VENKATESH @ REZAR VENKATESH, S/O. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED 51, R/O. D.NO. 17, SOMESWARAPALYA, MUIBHAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. NATIVE OF VELUDURU VILLAGE, OBILI SRINIVASAPURAM TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 3. KOTTEVALLA JAYAPRAKASH REDDY JAYA REDD, S/O. MUNIRATHNAM, AGED 23, R/O. VINAYAKA TEMPLE, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN, AND MANDAL. 4. THOTI MANJUNADH MANJU, S/O. MUNICHOWDAPPA, AGE 27 YEARS R/O. MAREDUPALLE VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 5. MUNIRATHNAM VENKATESH MALA VENKATESU, GANGANAPALLE VENKATESU, S/O. MUNIRATHNAM, AGED 39, R/O. D.NO.28-660, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 6. S MURUGAN MURUGA, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 41, R/O. D.NO.5-1004, SUBHASHCHANDRABOSE STREET, SANTHAPETA, CHITTOOR. 7. VENKATA YOGANANDAM, S/O. RCV SUBBAIAH SETTI, AGE 35 YEARS, R/O. K.C. GARDEN, S.P. BUNGALOW ROAD, KONGAREDDIPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 8. K PARANDAMA, S/O. M.S.KANNAN, AGE 30, R/O. GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN. 9. YELLAMANDALA HARIDASU, S/O. M.CHINNABBA NAIDU, AGED 44, R/O. MATTAMPALLE VILLAGE, KALAVAKUNTA PENUMURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10. KUPPALA CHANDRASEKHAR MOGILI, S/O. KUPPALA RADHAKRISHNA, AGED 42 R/O. D. NO.28-652, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN. 11. NATARAJA SASIDHAR, S/O. NATARAJA GURUKUL, AGED 42, R/O. D.NO.322, 7TH CROSS, DMBR LAYOUT, BOUNSVADI, BANGALORE. NATIVE OF SOMESWARAPALYA, MUIBHAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 12. MALLAMGUNTA SREENIVASULU YOGANAND, S/O. SREENIVASULU NAIDU, AGED 49, R/O. D. NO.2-959, POSTAL COLONY, KONGAREDDYPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN. 13. D NAGESH BABU RVT BABU, 3 S/O. D.GANGI REDDY, AGED 38, R/O. D.NO.31-85/2, LIC COLONY, KOTHAINDIU, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 14. BANDOLLA LOKESH, S/O. NAGULAPPA @ NAGULU, AGED 23, R/O. DANDUPALEM VILLAGE, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 15. PARA RAGHUPATHI, S/O. VENKATESWARLU NAIDU, AGED 29, R/O. DANDUPALEM VILLAGE, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3 16. GULLANNA NAGARAJU, S/O. G.MUNI VENKATAPPA, AGED 30, R/O. DURGASANDRAM VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 17. EKLAPATIA VENKATA ANAND KUMAR, S/O. VENKATARAMANA, AGED 38, R/O. KATIPERI VILLAGE, CHOWDEPALLE MANDAL PRESENTLY RESIDING BESIDE MARKET YARD, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 18. MADDELA KAMALAKAR, S/O. B. EKAMBARAM NAIDU, AGED 45, DGM IN NARAYANA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, GORIVIGIRI, KADUGUDI MAIN ROAD. BANGALORE, RESIDING AT PLAT NO.302, A-BLOCK TOWER-1, AWHO APARTMENTS, KADUGUDI MAIN ROAD. BANGALORE. 19. RAMAKRISHNAN RAJANIKANTH RAJINI, S/O. LATE K.M. RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 38, R/O. D.NO. 14-587, NEW KAYANIKATTU STREET, CHITTOOR. 20. THUTALA KUPPASWAMY NARENDRABABU NARENDRA, S/O. T.S.KUPPUSWAMY, AGED 41, R/O. D.NO.27-960, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOOR TOWN. 21. S SRINIVASACHAR SRINIVASACHARY, (DIED-ABATED) 22. KASAM RAMESHDISCHARGED, S/O. K. NARAYANA, AGED 40, R/O. D.NO.5-731, MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE STREET, SRIKALAHASTHI. 23. THIRUPATHUR GOVINDARAJAN SURESH, @ I.G. SURESH @ BULLET SURESH, AGED 50 S/O. T.G.SREENIVASAN, R/O. D.NO.27-1092, TELEPHONE COLONY, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 24. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SDPO, CHITTOOR, (CHITTOOR I TOWN PS) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU, AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SAI SURYA TEJA 4 Counsel for the Respondents: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Criminal Petition No.7622 of 2025: Between: 1. V. YOGANANDAM, S/O R.C.V SUBBAIAH SETTI, AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, R/O 2-1075/3, GROUND FLOOR, KAYS GARDEN, S.P. BUNGATAW ROAD, KONGAREDDYPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2. VELURI SATHISH KUMAR NAIDU, S/O. V. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-768, RICE MILL COMPOUND, KONGAREDDIPALLI, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. P SAI SURYA TEJA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.7234 of 2025 under Section 582 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 has been filed by the Petitioner / Victim 1 For short ‘BNSS’ 5 seeking to set aside the Order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.800 of 2025 in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences against women, Chittoor and to permit the Prosecution to recall P.W.47 – Assistant Director, APFSL for the purpose of marking the CD-R containing electronic evidence along with Section 65B Certificate. Criminal Petition No.7622 of 2025 under Section 582 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.7 seeking to set aside the Order dated 14.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.923 of 2025 in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences against women, Chittoor and to recall P.W.11 for cross examination. 2. Heard Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the Victim, Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Accused and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Criminal Petition No.7234 of 2025: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Victim would submit that the Order passed by the learned trial Judge is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel would further submit to prove that Accused No.8 conducted reccee before the commission of offence, recall of P.W.47, who is the Assistant Director of APFSL is necessary for marking of CD-R along with the Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 6 Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Victim would submit that the purpose of Section 311 Cr.P.C is to ensure that the Court arrives at the truth by allowing necessary evidence to be adduced. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Victim would further submit that no new theories or evidence are being introduced. It is further submitted that the original H.P.Pavilion laptop contains the source files of the „reccee‟ operation conducted by Accused No.8 and the same was copied to the CD-R, which is a part and parcel of the material evidence already available on record. The CD-R which was scientifically copied by P.W.47, during the course of forensic analysis, is the only accessible and reliable medium. Learned counsel would submit that denial of marking of such CD-R when accompanied by a Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, would amount of exclusion of secondary evidence, which is crucial to prove the case of the Prosecution. P.W.47 who authored the forensic report and who copied the contents of the laptop to CD-R, is competent to certify the process and the manner of extraction from the forensic records maintained by the laboratory. Learned counsel would further submit that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal2 has categorically held that, in cases, where a defective certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is given, or where such certificate has been demanded but not furnished, it is the duty of the Court to summon the person 2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 571 7 referred to in Section 65B and require that the certificate be given. Learned counsel would submit that, in the present case, the CD-R containing the video footage forming part of the prosecution evidence was produced along with the charge sheet, and a formal certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act was later obtained from P.W.47, who is the custodian of the forensic evidence. In support of hic contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Haryana3, Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and another4 and Union of India and others vs. CDR.Ravindra V. Desai5. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for Accused would submit that the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application filed by the Prosecution to recall P.W.47. Learned counsel would further submit that, strict compliance of the conditions mentioned in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is mandatory. In the instant case, the said certificate does not contain the particulars of the device that is allegedly used in copying the electronic record i.e., Forensic Computer Workstation as mentioned in the Certificate. In the certificate the witness stated that he used Forensic Computer Workstation device for making soft copy of the digital data in Sony CD-R, whereas, in his 3 (2017) 8 SCC 570 4 (2001) 3 SCC 1 5 (2018) 16 SCC 273 8 evidence as P.W.47 before the Court, he stated that he used Encase software device to make soft copy. The two devices are entirely different. Learned counsel for the Accused would further submit that, admittedly P.W.47 tested the laptop and copied the content into the CDR many years before giving evidence and as per the requirement of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the certificate has to be issued on the same day on which he is testing the device and copying the content into the CD-R. But, P.W.47 had not issued any such certificate at that time and when the Court objected to mark the exhibit on the ground that it did not have the certificate under Section 65B, the present certificate was fabricated and was issued only on 17.03.2025. Therefore, the said certificate is not valid. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao case (supra), the High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence6 and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana7. Criminal Petition No.7622 of 2025: 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Accused No.7 would submit that, P.W.11 is a local witness and his further cross examination is very much required to establish certain vital aspects. It is further submitted that the Petitioner/Accused No.7, who has been facing trial in a serious case, must be given a fair opportunity to defend himself in the case. Learned counsel would submit that, even if P.W.11 is recalled, no prejudice will be caused to the case 6 2025 NCDHC 1875 7 2015(2) RCR (Criminal) 289 9 of the Prosecution. It is submitted that the proposed questions were not asked only due to mistake and oversight but it was neither willful nor wanton. 7. Learned counsel for Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Victim, in unison, would submit that the petition filed for recalling P.W.11 is not maintainable and is filed belatedly after lapse of two years, only to prolong the trial and to fill the lacunae. It is further submitted that P.W.11 has already been thoroughly cross-examined. 8. Having heard the submissions on either side, now the points that would emerge for determination are: (1) Whether there are any tenable grounds to recall P.W.47 – Assistant Director, APFSL for the purpose of marking the CD-R containing electronic evidence along with Section 65B Certificate? (2) Whether P.W.11 can be recalled for the purpose of further cross- examination? Point Nos.1 and 2: 9. In the case on hand, in connection with the homicidal death of Smt.Katari Anuradha (Deceased No.1) and Sri Katari Mohan (Deceased No.2) a case in Crime No.130 of 2025 of Chittoor I Town Police Station was registered on 17.11.2015. Deceased No.1 was the Chairperson of the Municipal Corporation at the time of the incident and Deceased No.2 is her husband. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 326, 120B, 109 read with 149, 212, 216, 201 IPC and Sections 25(1AAA), 25(1B)(a) and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 10 against Accused Nos.1 to 23, the same was committed to the trial Court and was numbered as S.C.No.110 of 2016. 10. It is alleged that, prior to the date of offence, Accused No.8 conducted „reccee‟ of the scene of offence and videographed the same in his H.P.Pavilion laptop. The said laptop containing the video files of the „reccee‟ operation was seized by the investigating officer during investigation and sent the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. P.W.47, who is the Assistant Director of APFSL, analyzed the contents of the laptop, copied the relevant video files into a Sony CD-R, 700 MB capacity and issued the FLS report. The H.P.Pavilion laptop, FSL report and the CD-R were produced before the trial Court along with the charge sheet. During the examination of P.W.47, the FLS report was marked as Ex.P.280, but the CD-R was not marked as the same was opposed by the defence on the ground that it was not accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of the said objection, the requisite Section 65B certificate has been obtained from P.W.47 by the Prosecution and filed Crl.M.P.No.800 of 2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking to recall P.W.47 to mark the CD-R with the said certificate. The learned trial Judge vide Order dated 23.06.2025 dismissed the said application on the grounds that, Section 65B certificate was not contemporaneously obtained, there were inconsistencies in dates mentioned in the certificate and the report, the said certificate lacked forensic markers like hash values and recalling of P.W.47 at this stage would amount to filling lacunae in the case of the Prosecution. 11 11. On the other hand, Accused No.7, after completion of examination of the Prosecution witnesses and Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall P.W.11 for further cross examination to specific questions relating to the distance between his shop and the municipal office, the directions of the shop of P.W.1 to the municipal office, the details of the road leading towards North of municipal office and place of railway over bridge. However, the said petition was also dismissed. 12. For ready reference Section 311 Cr.P.C is extracted hereunder: “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present.—Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” 13. In the instant case, admittedly, P.W.47, who is the-then Assistant Director of APFSL analyzed the contents of the H.P.Pavilion laptop, which is purportedly containing the video files of the „reccee‟ alleged to have conducted by Accused No.8 prior to the commission of the alleged offences. He copied the relevant video files into a CD-R of 700 MB capacity. P.W.47 was previously examined regarding the electronic evidence and the FSL report was marked through him as Ex.P.280. However, the CD-R was not marked as an exhibit on behalf of the Prosecution on the ground that it was not supported by the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The contents of the CD-R were copied by the Government Scientific Expert, which forms part of the original case record. 12 14. In Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI8, the Court observed that the provision under consideration comprises two distinct parts. The first part, being permissive in nature, confers a discretionary authority upon the criminal court to, at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code: (i) summon any person as a witness; or (ii) examine any person present in court, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, enjoins the court to either (i) summon and examine, or (ii) recall and re-examine any such person, where the evidence of such person appears to the court to be essential for a just decision of the case. 15. In Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan9, the Court emphasised that the discretionary powers vested in the court under Section 311 CrPC are intended to ensure that the record remains complete, any ambiguity in evidence is clarified, and that no prejudice is caused to either party. 16. In Natasha Singh v. CBI10, although the application for examination of witnesses was moved by the accused, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while explaining the ambit of Section 311, held that it empowers the court, at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings, to summon, examine, recall or re- examine any person if such evidence is essential for a just decision. This wide power must, however, be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily, and may even be invoked suo motu.The provision aims to discover the truth and ensure a 8 (2019) 14 SCC 328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839 9 (2019) 6 SCC 203 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 765 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 552 10 (2013) 5 SCC 741 13 fair adjudication. It cannot be used to fill lacunae in the prosecution or defence, to prejudice the accused, or to provide an unfair advantage. Additional evidence must be directly relevant, and the opposite party must have an opportunity to rebut it. Thus, the provision must be invoked only for strong and valid reasons, with due caution and circumspection, to advance the cause of justice. The expressions “any court”, “at any stage”, “any inquiry, trial or other proceeding”, and “any person” underscore the wide amplitude of the section, leaving no doubt that if fresh evidence is essential for a just decision, the court is bound to summon or recall the witness concerned. 17. The scope and purpose of Section 311 Cr.P.C is intended to ensure a fair trial by allowing the necessary evidence to be adduced, even at a later stage. Forensic Computer Workstation is a specialized computer system designed for digital forensic investigations i.e., to acquire, analyze and preserve digital evidence such as date from computers, mobile devices and other storage media. Whereas EnCase is not a physical software device, but rather a powerful and widely recognized digital forensics software, which can be used to acquire, preserve, analyze, and report on digital evidence from computers, mobile phones, and other digital sources. As such, for making soft copy of the digital data in Sony CD-R, usage of Forensic Computer Work Station and Encase does not make any difference, since one is a hardware device and the other is a software used for the said purpose. 18. Further, the contention that P.W.47 had not issued the certificate under Section 65B at the time of marking of FSL report, as such, the CD-R was not 14 marked through P.W.47, is not tenable, because, the laptop, FSL report and also the CD-R are very much available in the record and they form part of the record and Section 65B certificate merely facilitates the admissibility of the contents of the CD-R. As such, no new facts or evidence will be introduced by marking the CD-R through P.W.47. 19. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu @ Amar (supra), held as follows: “It is nobody’s case that CDRs which are a form of electronic record are not inherently admissible in evidence. The objection is that they were marked before the Trial Court without a certificate as required by Section 65B (4). It is clear from the judgments referred to supra that an objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be raised at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit and not later. The crucial test, as affirmed by this Court, is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Applying this test to the present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the Court could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. It is also clear from the above judgments that objections regarding admissibility of documents which are per se inadmissible can be taken even at the appellate stage. Admissibility of a document which is inherently inadmissible is an issue which can be taken up at the appellate stage because it is a fundamental issue. The mode or method of proof is procedural and objections, if not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the appellate stage. If the objections to the mode of proof are permitted to be taken at the appellate stage by a party, the other side does not have an opportunity of rectifying the deficiencies. The learned Senior Counsel for the State referred to statements under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 as an example of documents falling under the said category of inherently inadmissible evidence. CDRs do not fall in the said category of documents. We are satisfied that an objection that CDRs are unreliable due to violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 65 B (4) cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage as the objection relates to the mode or method of proof.” 20. In the judgment referred to supra, since an objection was taken to mark the CDR as it was not accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the Court ought to have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. Whereas, in the instant case, no such opportunity has been given. The observation of the learned trial Judge that P.W.47 is no longer employed at Hyderabad Forensic Science Laboratory and therefore, 15 issuance of certificate without access to the original forensic equipment, is not sustainable, since P.W.47, who authored the forensic report and who copied the contents of the laptop to CD-R contemporaneously during his tenure at APFSL, is competent to certify the process and the manner of extraction. Further, mentioning of technical specifications such as hash values of checksum identifiers, is not an essential condition under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The requirement is only that the certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced and the particulars of the device involved. The CD-R was generated by a forensic officer from a government laboratory in an official capacity and the authenticity of the process is presumed unless rebutted by cogent evidence. Therefore, absence of hash values, per se, does not render the certificate inadmissible. 21. The CD-R proposed to be marked in the instant case, contains the crucial video footage forming part of the prosecution evidence and the same was produced along with the charge sheet and a certificate under Section 65 B was later obtained from P.W.47, who is the government expert and custodian of the forensic evidence. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that, a fair opportunity shall be given to the Prosecution to recall P.W.47 for the purpose of marking the CD-R containing electronic evidence along with Section 65B Certificate. 22. Coming to the contention of Accused No.7 that due to mistake and oversight, P.W.11 was not cross examined on certain vital aspects, and they intend to put five or six specific questions which are useful to prove his case, 16 as rightly put by the learned counsel for Petitioner / Accused No.7, since Accused No.7 is facing trial in a more serious case, he must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the case. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned Orders passed by the learned trial Judge in Crl.M.P.Nos.800 and 923 of 2025 in S.C.No.110 of 2016 are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside. 24. In the result, Criminal Petition No.7234 of 2025 is allowed setting aside the Order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.800 of 2025 in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences against women, Chittoor. The Prosecution is permitted to recall P.W.47 – Assistant Director, APFSL for the purpose of marking the CD-R containing electronic evidence along with Section 65B Certificate. Criminal Petition No.7622 of 2025 is allowed setting aside the Order dated 14.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.923 of 2025 in S.C.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of offences against women, Chittoor. Petitioner/Accused No.7 is permitted to recall P.W.11 for cross examination on the aspects mentioned in the petition. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:02.09.2025 Dinesh 17 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.Nos. 7234 & 7622 OF 2025 Dt.02.09.2025 Dinesh 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 7234 & 7622 OF 2025 Criminal Petition No:7234 of 2025 Between: 1. VELURI SATHISH KUMAR NAIDU, S/O. SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 29, R/O. D.NO. 4-20, SETIN THANGAL, KURCHIVEDU, NARASINGARAYANIPETTA, CHITTOOR DISTRI ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. SRIRAM CHANDRASEKHAR ALIAS CHINTU, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 45, R/O. D.NO.28-761/1, KANNAIAH NAIDU COLONY CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 2. GOVINDASWAMY SRINIVASAIAH VENKATACHALAPATHI, MUIBHAGAL VENKATESH @ REZAR VENKATESH, S/O. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED 51, R/O. D.NO. 17, SOMESWARAPALYA, MUIBHAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. NATIVE OF VELUDURU VILLAGE, OBILI SRINIVASAPURAM TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 3. KOTTEVALLA JAYAPRAKASH REDDY JAYA REDD, S/O. MUNIRATHNAM, AGED 23, R/O. VINAYAKA TEMPLE, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN, AND MANDAL. 4. THOTI MANJUNADH MANJU, S/O. MUNICHOWDAPPA, AGE 27 YEARS R/O. MAREDUPALLE VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. MUNIRATHNAM VENKATESH MALA VENKATESU, GANGANAPALLE VENKATESU, S/O. MUNIRATHNAM, AGED 39, R/O. D.NO.28-660, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 6. S MURUGAN MURUGA, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 41, R/O. D.NO.5-1004, SUBHASHCHANDRABOSE STREET, SANTHAPETA, CHITTOOR. 7. VENKATA YOGANANDAM, S/O. RCV SUBBAIAH SETTI, AGE 35 YEARS, R/O. K.C. GARDEN, S.P. BUNGALOW ROAD, 19 KONGAREDDIPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 8. K PARANDAMA, S/O. M.S.KANNAN, AGE 30, R/O. GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN. 9. YELLAMANDALA HARIDASU, S/O. M.CHINNABBA NAIDU, AGED 44, R/O. MATTAMPALLE VILLAGE, KALAVAKUNTA PENUMURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10. KUPPALA CHANDRASEKHAR MOGILI, S/O. KUPPALA RADHAKRISHNA, AGED 42 R/O. D. NO.28-652, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN. 11. NATARAJA SASIDHAR, S/O. NATARAJA GURUKUL, AGED 42, R/O. D.NO.322, 7TH CROSS, DMBR LAYOUT, BOUNSVADI, BANGALORE. NATIVE OF SOMESWARAPALYA, MUIBHAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 12. MALLAMGUNTA SREENIVASULU YOGANAND, S/O. SREENIVASULU NAIDU, AGED 49, R/O. D. NO.2-959, POSTAL COLONY, KONGAREDDYPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN. 13. D NAGESH BABU RVT BABU, 3 S/O. D.GANGI REDDY, AGED 38, R/O. D.NO.31-85/2, LIC COLONY, KOTHAINDIU, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 14. BANDOLLA LOKESH, S/O. NAGULAPPA @ NAGULU, AGED 23, R/O. DANDUPALEM VILLAGE, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 15. PARA RAGHUPATHI, S/O. VENKATESWARLU NAIDU, AGED 29, R/O. DANDUPALEM VILLAGE, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 16. GULLANNA NAGARAJU, S/O. G.MUNI VENKATAPPA, AGED 30, R/O. DURGASANDRAM VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 17. EKLAPATIA VENKATA ANAND KUMAR, S/O. VENKATARAMANA, AGED 38, R/O. KATIPERI VILLAGE, CHOWDEPALLE MANDAL PRESENTLY RESIDING BESIDE MARKET YARD, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 18. MADDELA KAMALAKAR, S/O. B. EKAMBARAM NAIDU, AGED 45, DGM IN NARAYANA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, GORIVIGIRI, 20 KADUGUDI MAIN ROAD. BANGALORE, RESIDING AT PLAT NO.302, A-BLOCK TOWER-1, AWHO APARTMENTS, KADUGUDI MAIN ROAD. BANGALORE. 19. RAMAKRISHNAN RAJANIKANTH RAJINI, S/O. LATE K.M. RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 38, R/O. D.NO. 14-587, NEW KAYANIKATTU STREET, CHITTOOR. 20. THUTALA KUPPASWAMY NARENDRABABU NARENDRA, S/O. T.S.KUPPUSWAMY, AGED 41, R/O. D.NO.27-960, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOOR TOWN. 21. S SRINIVASACHAR SRINIVASACHARY, (DIED-ABATED) 22. KASAM RAMESHDISCHARGED, S/O. K. NARAYANA, AGED 40, R/O. D.NO.5-731, MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE STREET, SRIKALAHASTHI. 23. THIRUPATHUR GOVINDARAJAN SURESH, @ I.G. SURESH @ BULLET SURESH, AGED 50 S/O. T.G.SREENIVASAN, R/O. D.NO.27-1092, TELEPHONE COLONY, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 24. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SDPO, CHITTOOR, (CHITTOOR I TOWN PS) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU, AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Criminal Petition No.7622 of 2025: Between: 1. V. YOGANANDAM, S/O R.C.V SUBBAIAH SETTI, AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, R/O 2-1075/3, GROUND FLOOR, KAYS GARDEN, S.P. BUNGATAW ROAD, KONGAREDDYPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 21 2. VELURI SATHISH KUMAR NAIDU, S/O. V. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-768, RICE MILL COMPOUND, KONGAREDDIPALLI, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 02.09.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether Her Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 22 * THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA + CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 7234 & 7622 OF 2025 % 02.09.2025 Criminal Petition No:7234 of 2025 Between: 1. VELURI SATHISH KUMAR NAIDU, S/O. SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 29, R/O. D.NO. 4-20, SETIN THANGAL, KURCHIVEDU, NARASINGARAYANIPETTA, CHITTOOR DISTRI ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. SRIRAM CHANDRASEKHAR ALIAS CHINTU, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 45, R/O. D.NO.28-761/1, KANNAIAH NAIDU COLONY CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 2. GOVINDASWAMY SRINIVASAIAH VENKATACHALAPATHI, MUIBHAGAL VENKATESH @ REZAR VENKATESH, S/O. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED 51, R/O. D.NO. 17, SOMESWARAPALYA, MUIBHAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. NATIVE OF VELUDURU VILLAGE, OBILI SRINIVASAPURAM TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 3. KOTTEVALLA JAYAPRAKASH REDDY JAYA REDD, S/O. MUNIRATHNAM, AGED 23, R/O. VINAYAKA TEMPLE, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN, AND MANDAL. 4. THOTI MANJUNADH MANJU, S/O. MUNICHOWDAPPA, AGE 27 YEARS R/O. MAREDUPALLE VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, GANGAVARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. MUNIRATHNAM VENKATESH MALA VENKATESU, GANGANAPALLE VENKATESU, S/O. MUNIRATHNAM, AGED 39, R/O. D.NO.28-660, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 6. S MURUGAN MURUGA, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 41, R/O. D.NO.5-1004, SUBHASHCHANDRABOSE STREET, SANTHAPETA, CHITTOOR. 23 7. VENKATA YOGANANDAM, S/O. RCV SUBBAIAH SETTI, AGE 35 YEARS, R/O. K.C. GARDEN, S.P. BUNGALOW ROAD, KONGAREDDIPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 8. K PARANDAMA, S/O. M.S.KANNAN, AGE 30, R/O. GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN. 9. YELLAMANDALA HARIDASU, S/O. M.CHINNABBA NAIDU, AGED 44, R/O. MATTAMPALLE VILLAGE, KALAVAKUNTA PENUMURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10. KUPPALA CHANDRASEKHAR MOGILI, S/O. KUPPALA RADHAKRISHNA, AGED 42 R/O. D. NO.28-652, GANGANAPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN. 11. NATARAJA SASIDHAR, S/O. NATARAJA GURUKUL, AGED 42, R/O. D.NO.322, 7TH CROSS, DMBR LAYOUT, BOUNSVADI, BANGALORE. NATIVE OF SOMESWARAPALYA, MUIBHAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 12. MALLAMGUNTA SREENIVASULU YOGANAND, S/O. SREENIVASULU NAIDU, AGED 49, R/O. D. NO.2-959, POSTAL COLONY, KONGAREDDYPALLE, CHITTOOR TOWN. 13. D NAGESH BABU RVT BABU, 3 S/O. D.GANGI REDDY, AGED 38, R/O. D.NO.31-85/2, LIC COLONY, KOTHAINDIU, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 14. BANDOLLA LOKESH, S/O. NAGULAPPA @ NAGULU, AGED 23, R/O. DANDUPALEM VILLAGE, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 15. PARA RAGHUPATHI, S/O. VENKATESWARLU NAIDU, AGED 29, R/O. DANDUPALEM VILLAGE, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 16. GULLANNA NAGARAJU, S/O. G.MUNI VENKATAPPA, AGED 30, R/O. DURGASANDRAM VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 17. EKLAPATIA VENKATA ANAND KUMAR, S/O. VENKATARAMANA, AGED 38, R/O. KATIPERI VILLAGE, CHOWDEPALLE MANDAL PRESENTLY RESIDING BESIDE MARKET YARD, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 24 18. MADDELA KAMALAKAR, S/O. B. EKAMBARAM NAIDU, AGED 45, DGM IN NARAYANA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, GORIVIGIRI, KADUGUDI MAIN ROAD. BANGALORE, RESIDING AT PLAT NO.302, A-BLOCK TOWER-1, AWHO APARTMENTS, KADUGUDI MAIN ROAD. BANGALORE. 19. RAMAKRISHNAN RAJANIKANTH RAJINI, S/O. LATE K.M. RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 38, R/O. D.NO. 14-587, NEW KAYANIKATTU STREET, CHITTOOR. 20. THUTALA KUPPASWAMY NARENDRABABU NARENDRA, S/O. T.S.KUPPUSWAMY, AGED 41, R/O. D.NO.27-960, PALAMANER ROAD, CHITTOOR TOWN. 21. S SRINIVASACHAR SRINIVASACHARY, (DIED-ABATED) 22. KASAM RAMESHDISCHARGED, S/O. K. NARAYANA, AGED 40, R/O. D.NO.5-731, MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE STREET, SRIKALAHASTHI. 23. THIRUPATHUR GOVINDARAJAN SURESH, @ I.G. SURESH @ BULLET SURESH, AGED 50 S/O. T.G.SREENIVASAN, R/O. D.NO.27-1092, TELEPHONE COLONY, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL. 24. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SDPO, CHITTOOR, (CHITTOOR I TOWN PS) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, NELAPADU, AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Criminal Petition No.7622 of 2025: Between: 1. V. YOGANANDAM, S/O R.C.V SUBBAIAH SETTI, AGED ABOUT 45 YRS, R/O 2-1075/3, GROUND FLOOR, KAYS GARDEN, S.P. BUNGATAW ROAD, KONGAREDDYPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 25 2. VELURI SATHISH KUMAR NAIDU, S/O. V. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-768, RICE MILL COMPOUND, KONGAREDDIPALLI, CHITTOOR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): ! Counsel for Petitioner in Crl.P.No.7234 of 2025 & Respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No. 7622 of 2025 : Sri P.Sai Surya Teja ^ Counsel for Respondents / Accused Crl.P.No.7234 of 2025 & Petitioner in Crl.P.No. 7622 of 2025 : Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy : Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, Asst.Public Prosecutor for State < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 571 2. (2017) 8 SCC 570 3. (2001) 3 SCC 1 4. (2018) 16 SCC 273 5. 2025 NCDHC 1875 6. 2015 (2) RCR (Criminal) 289 7. (2019) 14 SCC 328 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 839 8. (2019) 6 SCC 203 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 765 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 552 9. (2013) 5 SCC 741 This Court made the following: