APHC010381462025 0E0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI IHURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE r PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7810 OF 2025 Between: Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara S/o.Chakradhara Rao Kondayyapaiem, Kakinada Addateegala Mandal, Sitting MLC of Andhra Pradesh. Rao @ Anantha Babu, aged 47 years, R/o.Shankar Towers, Kakinada District. R/o.Yellavaram, ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. I he State of Andhra Pradesh, (through SHO, Sarpavaram P.S., Kakinada), Rep by it’s Public Prosecutor, Pradesh, Amaravati. High Court of Andhra ...Respondent/Respondent Kakinada Sub-Division, 2. The State Sub-Divisional Police Officer Kakinada. ...Respondent/Complainant Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the orders passed by the Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-X Additional District Court, Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.431 of 2025 in SC ST S.C.No.78 of 2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the Order dated 22.07.2025 in Cri.M.P.No.431 of 2025 in SC ST S.C.No.78 of 2023, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-X Additional District Court, Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.Raghu, Senior Counsel, representing Sri G.Sai Lochan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D.Srinivas, Advocate General The Court made the following: HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT Afi/IARAVATI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7810 of 2025 Between Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao @ Anantha Babu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Through Sho, Sarpavaram P.S., Kakinada) rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 2. The State Subdivisional Police Officer, Kakinada Sub-Division, Kakinada. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) **** DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED 31.07.2025 2 Dr- YLR.J Crl.P.No.7810 of 2025 D;-31.07.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment"? Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No 3 Dr.YLR.J Cl! P N0.78W of 2025 D!. 31-07.2025 * THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.7810 OF 2025 % 31.07.2025 # Between: Anantha Satya Udaya Bhaskara Rao @ Anantha Babu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Through Sho, Sarpavaram P.S., Kakinada) rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 2.The State Subdivisionat Police Officer, Kakinada Sub-Division, Kakinada. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) : Sri G.Sai Lochan ! Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for the Respondent : Sri D.Srinivas 4 Dr. YLR.J Crl. P. No. 7810 of 2025 Dt.31.07.2025 The Order of the Court was delivered by Dr. Justice Y.LakshmanaRao:— For the convenience of exposition, this order is divided into the following parts:— A. FACTUAL MATRIX B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION E. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS F. ANALYSIS G. CONCLUSION < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) 2024 see Online SC 2643 2) (2023) 16 sec 779 3) (2013) 5 sec 762 4) (1998) 5 sec 223 5) (2009) 6 sec 346 6) (2004) 5 sec 347 7) (2008) 5 sec 413 8) (2023) 12 sec 592 9) (2023) 1 sec 48 10) (2008) 2 see 383 11) (1992) 1 see 397 12) (2002)4 SeR 536 Dr.YLR.J CrLP.NO-78W ot 2025 Dt.31.07.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No:7810/2025 ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) {Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)} challenging the order dated 22.07.2025 in CrI.M.P.431 of 2025 in SC ST S.C.No.78 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) - X Additional District Court, Rajamahendravaram (for brevity the Trial Court) in permitting the Respondent No.2/lnvestigating Officer to conduct further investigation and file a report to that effect within a period of three months from the date of the order. Act - cum A.FACTUAL MATRIX On 20.05.2022 at 07:00 hours, Veedi Nooka Ratnam lodged a report with Sarpavaram Police Station alleging that her elder son, by name Veedhi Subrahmanyam, who was 2. employed as a car driver accused/Petitioner/Anantha Udaya Bhaskar, Member of Legislative Council (MLC), had died under suspicious circumstances. Three weeks prior to the incident, the Veedhi Subrahmanyam sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident and was convalescing at his residence. On 19.05.2022 at 19:30 hours, Veedhi Subrahmanyam reportedly left his residence in the company of his acquaintance, Arava Manikanta. Thereafter, at about 00:50 hours by on 6 Dr. YLR.J Crl.P.No.781 Oof 2025 Dl. 31.07.2025 20.05.2022, the accused contacted Veedi Nooka Ratnam/LW.1 on mobile number 9440662222 and informed her that Veedhi Subrahmanyam had met with an accident and was rendered unconscious. Subsequently, at 01:33 hours, the accused made a second call, stating that he and Veedi Naveen were present at Amrutha Hospital, situated near Janmabhumi Park, Kakinada. 3. In response, Veedi Nooka Ratnam, Veedi Satyanarayana and Veedi Aparna proceeded to the hospital, where Veedi Nooka Ratnam/LW.1 found the dead body of Veedhi Subrahmanyam lying inside a car bearing registration number AP 39 B 0456, displaying multiple contusions and bleeding injuries, especially on the lower extremities. Veedi Nooka Ratnam (LW.1) expressed suspicion that the injuries appeared inconsistent with those typically sustained in vehicular accidents and alleged that her son might have been subjected to physical assault. Upon examination, Dr.Seelam Sravan Kumar (LW.37), a medical officer, declared the deceased dead. 4. .After the declaration of death, the accused sent Veedi Nooka Ratnam/LW.1 and the mortal remain of Veedhi Subrahmanyam in the aforementioned vehicle to their residence. He departed the location shortly, thereafter, abandoning the said vehicle at the premises. Acting upon the report of Veedi Nooka Ratnam (LW.1), N.Satish Babu, Sub Inspector of Police (LW.54), registered a case in Crime No.195/2022, under Section 174 of 'the Cr.P.C.,’ for suspicious death. 5. Under the directions issued by V.Bhimarao, Sub Divisional Police Officer (LW.56), A.Murali Krishna/Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram Police Station Or.YLRJ CrLP No.7810 of 2025 Dt.31.07.2025 (LW.55), took up the investigation. The Investigating Officer examined the scene of the incident in the presence of LWs.43 and 44, prepared a detailed Scene Observation Report, and seized relevant material objects including the suspected crime vehicle. It was noted that the blood relatives of the deceased, namely Veedi Nooka Ratnam, Veedi Satyanarayana, Veedhi Naveen, Veedi Aparna and Veedhi Srinu (LWs 1 to 4 and 14), were initially non-cooperative, purportedly under the influence of political elements and Dalit associations, which led to the staging of protests (Dharnas) at Government General Hospital, Kakinada. i his obstructed the immediate conduct of the inquest proceedings. Following sustained efforts and negotiation by police officials with Association representatives, caste elders, and relatives, the inquest was finally conducted on 21.05.2022 in the presence of Rayudu Vani (LW.43), Polisetti Venkata Satya Naga Janaki Anuradha Devi (LW.44) and Yenugupalli Krishna (LW.45), the panchayatdars and the deceased's kin. The cadaver thereafter forwarded to the Professor of Forensic Medicine, RMC, Government Central Hospital, Kakinada, for autopsy. It was further referred to in the chargesheet that Veedi Subrahmanyam (deceased), aged 24 years and belonged to the Scheduled Caste (Mala). He was employed as a car driver under the accused for approximately six years. At the time of his marriage, he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the accused, repaying Rs.30,000/- while Rs.20,000/- remained unpaid. Following an accident three weeks prior to the incident, the deceased had ceased working and convalescing at home. His pregnant spouse had relocated to her maternal 6. was 7. was 8 Dr.YLR.J CrLP.No.78Wof2025 Dt. 31.07.2025 residence in Samalkot. The accused persistently harassed the deceased and his family for the recovery of the remaining loan amount, issuing threats of grievous consequences. On 19.05.2022, the deceased was seen with Arava Manikanta (LW.5) and later consumed alcohol with friends. At approximately 10:30 PM, the accused arrived at the scene, took the deceased into his Hyundai 120 bearing No. AP39 B 0456, and left the premises. At 12:52 a.m., on 20.05.2022, the accused contacted Veedi Satyanarayana (LW.2), falsely claiming that the deceased had met with a motorcycle accident. Verification by Veedhi Naveen (LW.3) confirmed no such incident occurred. Subsequently, the accused found with the deceased in an unconscious state at Amrutha Hospital, where medical authorities confirmed death. The accused then transported the deceased's body to his residence, attempted to coerce the family into a hasty cremation by offering Rs.2,00,000/- and issuing threats. Upon observing suspicious injuries inconsistent with a traffic accident, family members and witnesses doubted that the deceased had been subjected to physical assault resulting in death. It was suspected that the accused bore animosity due to professional disputes, repayment issues, and the deceased’s knowledge of the accused's illicit affairs. Upon confrontation, the accused admitted to committing homicide and the matter was subsequently treated case of murder. 8. was 9. as a 10. The post-mortem examination was performed jointly by Dr.P.Uma Maheswararao (LW.49) and Dr. P.Ramakrishna (LW.50), on 21.05.2022. The 9 Dr.YLRJ CriP.NO-7810of2025 Dl.31.07.2025 preliminary report issued by Dr.P.Uma Maheswararao (LW.49) opined that the injuries sustained were ante-mortem in nature. This conclusion w'as found to be in contradiction with the alleged confession of the accused, wherein it stated that the injuries were inflicted post-offence. In furtherance of the investigation, Ms. M. Madhavi {LW.51), the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise cum VII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, recorded statements of LWs.1 to 10 and 37 under Section 164 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The contents therein corroborate the material averments made in the earlier statements recorded under Section was 11. 161(3) of‘the Cr.P.C.’ 12. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted by Dr.P.Uma Maheswararao (LW.49) and Dr. P.Ramakrishna (LW.50), who issued a preliminary post-mortem certificate while withholding their final opinion pending forensic reports from the RFSL and the pathology department of Government General Hospital, Kakinada. V.Bhimarao, Sub Divisional Police Officer (LW.56), submitted ,material evidence including CCTV footage, hard disks, and mobile phones of the deceased and the accused to RFSL Vijayawada and SFSL Mangalagiri for chemical examination and preservation of digital data. Upon analysing the available CCTV footage and confessional statements. Sub Divisional Police Officer identified inconsistencies that raised suspicions about the actual scene of the offence and the possible involvement of other individuals. Consequently, a petition was filed seeking police custody of the accused, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Sub Divisional Police 10 Dr.YLR.J Crl.P.No.7810of 2025 Dt.31.07.2025 Officer then approached the High Court at Amaravati by filing Criminal Revision Petition in CrI.P.No. 4852/2022. The High Court ordered service of personal notice on the accused and directed submission of proof of service. The matter remains surprisingly pending before the High Court as no steps were taken by the then investigating officer through the Public Prosecutor for pressing the disposal of the case for order of police custody of the Petitioner. The investigation established that the deceased belonged to the Mala community (Scheduled Caste) and the accused to the Kapu community (non- Scheduled Caste) Evidence indicates the accused harboured a longstanding grudge and deliberately murdered the deceased in a calculated and remorseless manner. Following the crime, the accused attempted to mislead the deceased’s family and residents by narrating false events to conceal the nature of the offence. The accused further misdirected law enforcement agency by providing inaccurate accounts, as confirmed by critical CCTV footage from both his residence and the vicinity of the crime scene. These recordings are essential in ascertaining the involvement of any other accused parties. Ultimately, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada filed a chargesheet against the Petitioner alleging that he is liable for offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of 'the I.P.C.,' and Sections 3(1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (V) of ‘the Act. It was also further mentioned in the chargesheet that if any reliable evidence either technical or material regarding the involvement of other come out, they would be charged with additional chargesheet. 13. persons 11 DrYLRJ Crl_P.No.7810ot2025 Ot.37.07.2025 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER: Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Sai Lochan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, argued that the Petitioner is the sole accused and a charge sheet was filed for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'the I.P.C.,’) and Sections 3(1) (r) (s), 3 (2) (V) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Act'), on 03.08.2022. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offences on 06.07.2023. The mother of the deceased (LW.1) filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.24362 of 2022 seeking directions for further investigation, but the writ petition was disposed on 04.01.2023 with certain directions to the investigating officer. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the mother of the deceased filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.290 of 2023 and the same was disposed of. Pursuant to the orders by the Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Appeal further investigation was conducted under Section 173(8) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and a supplementary charge sheet to that effect was filed on 03.05.2023. The mother of the deceased (LW.1) made a complaint to the Director General of Police/D.G.P, Mangalagiri, after filing the supplementary charge sheet, alleging that it was not possible for a sole accused to commit the crime. The complaint of LW.1 was forwarded by the D.G.P to the Superintendent of vide R.C.NO.1084/L&O-IV/2005 dated 11.04.2025, who in turn instructed the Respondent No,2/Sub-Divisional Police Officer for conducting 14. 15. Police, 12 Dr.YLR.J Crl-P-No.78Wof 2025 Dt. 31.07.2025 further investigation after obtaining necessary permission from the learned Jurisdictional Court. Based on the petition filed by the investigating officer, the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court. Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel further argued by relying judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi^ that the power under Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot be invoked unless there is further evidence. It cannot be utilized for the purpose of conducting further investigation based on vague complaints, when there is no material in the hands of the prosecution. 16. on a 17. In the petition submitted by the Investigating Officer before the learned Trial Court seeking permission for further investigation, there is no mention of any fresh evidence beyond what was already laid out in the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, except for a representation made by the mother of the deceased to the D.G.P, wherein she raises a suspicion about the commission of the offence by the accused/petitioner alone. Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel further, contended that representation made by the mother of the deceased, raising speculative doubts, cannot constitute sufficient ground to maintain an application for further investigation. It was urged that the Investigating Officer ought not to have filed an applicating seeking permission for further investigation in the case. The learned Trial Court failed to consider any contentions that were raised by the 18. a mere 2024 see OnLine SC 2643 13 Dr.YLR.J CrLP.No.78Wot2025 D;. 31-07.2025 Petitioner. Therefore, it is urged to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court as there is no further evidence and the allegation of the mother of the deceased is a vague, and there is no material in the hands of the prosecution. C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATF- 19. On the other hand, Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, argued that there was no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Based on the petition filed by the investigating officer, the learned Trial Court rightly gave permission to conduct further investigation. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Hemendhra Reddy^ IS argued that there was no obligation on the part of the learned Trial Court to hear the petitioner/accused while considering the application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Yet, the learned Trial Court heard the petitioner also and ordered for further investigation, but no further reinvestigation was ordered. The order doesn’t require any interference on whatsoever grounds. it 20. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, further submits that the Trial Court’s order permitting further investigation under Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C., is legally sound, procedurally correct, and well within the scope of judicial discretion. It is emphasized that this provision Vi/as enacted to empower law enforcement agencies to uncover additional facts and analyse new material q2023)16SCC779 14 DrYLR.J CrLP.No.78Wof2025 Dt.31.07.2025 evidence that may surface even after the filing of the original charge sheet. In this case, the emergence of forensic reports, digital evidence such as CCTV footage, mobile data, and hard disk contents significantly altered the trajectory of the investigation. These developments warranted a deeper inquiry, especially given the inconsistencies between the post-mortem findings and the accused’s alleged confession. 21. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General furthermore submits that the order for reinvestigation, granted by the learned Trial Court, was well-founded and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness. The doubts raised by the mother of the deceased regarding the accused's sole involvement are substantial and warrant a thorough re-examination of the case. The fact that the deceased was physically more robust than the accused raises a reasonable suspicion that the injuries could not have been inflicted solely by the accused, thereby necessitating further investigation to uncover the truth. Reinvestigation is a legitimate and necessary step to ensure that no innocent person is wrongfully prosecuted and that all relevant evidence is fully explored. The learned Trial Court's discretion to order such reinvestigation is supported by the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and to arrive at a just and fair conclusion based on comprehensive evidence. Therefore, the order for reinvestigation should be upheld, and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Petition. D. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 22. Now the points for consideration are: 15 Dr.YLRJ Crl.P_No.7S1 Oof 2025 Dt.31.07.2025 Whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief in the crinninal petition, against the order dated 22.07.2025 in CrI.M.P.431 of 2025 in SC ST S.C.No.78 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S. Cs & S. Ts (POA) Act — cum — X Additional District Court, Rajamahendravaram? If so, what relief and to what extent? II. E. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS: 23. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, it is necessary for us to investigate a few relevant provisions of ‘the Act., Cr.P.C.,’ and ‘the I.P.C.’ ‘the Section 3 (1) (r) fs) of ‘the Act’ 3.Punishments for offences of atrocities: — (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view: (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; Section 3 (2) (V) of ‘the Act’ (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; Section 173 (8) of‘the Cr.P.C.’ (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer- in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2I to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). Section 482 of‘the Cr.P.C.’ 16 Dr. YLRJ Crl.P.No.7810of2025 Dt. 31.07.2025 482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherv/ise to secure the ends of justice. Section 302 of ‘the I.P.C. ’ 302. Punishment for murder:— Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 201 of ‘the I.P.C.' 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender.— Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false: if a capital offence.— shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine: if punishable with imprisonment for life.— and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.— and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. F. ANALYSIS: After conducting investigation, Respondent No.2 filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court against the petitioner on 03.08.2022. The learned Trial Court took cognizance on 06.07.2023. While things stood thus the mother of the deceased, the de-facto complainant, filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.24362 of 2022 before this Court for direction for further investigation. However, on 04.01.2023, the Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court with the following order: 24. 17 DrYLR.J Crl. P.No.78i0ol2025 Dt.3h07.2025 "24. One of the prime requirements of any criminal investigation is the credibility of such investigation and the confidence it evokes in the stake holders of the said investigation. To ensure that, such confidence is further retained, this writ petition is being disposed of with the following directions: 1. The investigating officer shall take immediate steps to obtain the forensic science lab reports in relation to C.C TV footage, at the earliest, and preferably within 15 days from the date of this order. 2. The investigating officer, upon identification of the persons/person in the CC TV footage, shall conduct a thorough investigation into the reasons for the presence of such persons and their role, if any, in the commission of offence or in the cover up of the said offence. 3. The investigating officer, upon finding any incriminating material or record in this regard shall include all such persons against whom such incriminating material is obtained accused in the case and file a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate. 4. This direction is being given, as the matter is still pending before the Magistrate for committal to a Court of Sessions. In the event of the investigation being completed after the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the investigating officer shall file the supplementary charge sheet before the Court of Sessions itself 5. This process of further investigation, in relation to any further material against the sole accused and in relation to the involvement of other persons in this crime, shall be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of this order. ” Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the de-facto complainant preferred as 25. an appeal and it was disposed of by the learned Division Bench of this Court 01.12.2023 with the following direction: on “15. Needless to emphasize that the above decisions apply to the hand as in the instant case also the prayer in the writ petition was to transfer the Investigation in Cr.No. 195/2022 to CBI and learned single Judge observed that the conditions necessary for ordering transfer of investigation to an Independent agency like CBI do not exist and instead passed order issuing certain directions to the Investigating Officer. The said order was passed by learned single Judge while exercising the criminal Jurisdiction in criminal proceedings. Inasmuch as his order upheld the investigation conducted in the criminal proceedings by the State Agency. Therefore, in the light of Jurisprudence enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court, an intra-court writ appeal is not maintainable under clause 15 of Letters Patent as against the said order. This point is accordingly answered against the appellants. The case on 18 Dr.YLR.J Crl P.NO-7810 of 2025 Dt.31.07.2025 decision cited by learned counsel for appellants will be of no avail to their cause. ” Pursuant to the above orders further investigation was conducted under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.,’ by respondent No.2 and supplementary charge sheet was filed on 03.05.2023. 26. 27. While things stood thus, the de-facto complainant submitted a complaint to the D.G.P stating that it was not possible for the petitioner alone to attack the deceased and dealt 31 external injuries and 3 internal injuries and caused death of his son. So, she suspected that some more people were also involved along with the petitioner. Hence, she requested further investigation into the case for the ends of justice. The letter of the de-facto complainant was forwarded by the DGP to the Superintendent of Police, Kakinada District, who in turn directed Respondent No.2 to conduct necessary further investigation by obtaining permission from the learned Trial Court. 28. 29. Accordingly, a petition was filed by Respondent No.2 under Section 193(9) of the BNSS’ {173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’} for granting permission to conduct necessary further investigation. At paragraph No.4 of the petition, the Respondent No.2 submitted that the mother of the deceased raised a doubt that the deceased was an able-bodied person than the accused and the accused alone cannot inflict 31 externa! injuries and 3 internal injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased. She further represented that the investigating officers had not analyzed the cellphone call data of the deceased. previous 19 DfYLR.J Crl.P.NO-7810of2025 D;.31 07.2025 accused and others which v/ere obtained from service providers to establish the involvement of other persons in the crime. She further submitted that the earlier investigating officers had not properly examined and interrogated the gunmen and other witnesses. It was further mentioned in the petition that Respondent No.2 felt that there was a necessity to examine some more witnesses, after examining the CD file, and it is just necessity for further investigation on the points raised by the mother of the deceased to obtain technical and scientific evidence. 30. Mr. Raghu learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that the investigating officers at the time of conducting the investigation thoroughly examined the witnesses including the gunmen L.Ws.11 and 12, recorded their statements, obtained the CCTV footages and on analyzation came to clear conclusion that except the accused, no one had participated in the commission of the alleged offence. Even as per the call data of the accused, it was established that the accused alone is liable for the offences. Hence, there is no need to conduct further investigation into this matter. The impugned order of the learned Trial Court suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside. 31. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali", at para-Nos.20 to 23 and 43 held as under: ‘ 20. Having noticed the provisions and reievant part of the scheme of the Code, now we must examine the powers of the court to direct investigation, investigation can be ordered in varied forms and at different stages. Right at "(2013) 5 see 762 20 Dr. YLR.J CrLP.No.7810of2025 Dt.31.07.2025 the initial stage of receiving the FIR or a complaint, the court can direct investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 156(1) in exercise of its powers under Section 156(3) of the Code. Investigation can be of the following kinds; (i) Initial investigation, (ii) Further investigation, (Hi) Fresh or de novo or reinvestigation. 21. The “initial investigation" is the one which the empowered police officer shall conduct in furtherance of registration of an FIR. Such investigation itself can lead to filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code and shall take within its ambit the investigation which the empowered officer shall conduct in furtherance of an order for investigation passed by the court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 156(3) of the Code. 22. “Further investigation” is where the investigating officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the final report has been filed before the court in terms of Section 173(8). This power is vested with the executive. It IS the continuation of previous investigation and, therefore, is understood and described as “further investigation restricted to the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. Its purpose is to bring the true facts before the court even if they are discovered at a subseguent stage to the primary investigation. It is commonly described as supplementary report". “Supplementary report” would be the correct expression as the subseguent investigation is meant and intended to supplement the primary investigation conducted by the empowered police officer. Another significant feature of further investigation is that it does not have the effect of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial investigation conducted by the investigating agency. This is a kind of continuation of the previous investigation. The basis is discovery of fresh evidence and continuation of the same offence and chain of events relating to the occurrence incidental thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in complete contradistinction to a “rein vestigation The scope of such investigation is in same ‘fresh” or “de novo investigation. 23. However, in the case of a “fresh investigation", “reinvestigation" or “de novo investigation” there has to be a definite order of the court. The order of the court unambiguously should state as to whether the previous investigation, for reasons to be recorded, is incapable of being acted upon. Neither the investigating agency nor the Magistrate has any power to order or conduct “fresh investigation". This is primarily for the reason that it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code. It is essential that even an order of “fresh'Tde novo" investigation passed by the higher judiciary should always be coupled with a specific direction as to the fate of the investigation already conducted. The cases where such direction can be issued are few and far between. This is based upon a fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence which is that it is the right of a suspect or an accused to haye 3—IM§1 nnd fair investigation and trial. This principle flows from the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Where the investigation ex facie is unfair, tainted, mala fide and smacks of foul play, the courts would set aside such an investigation and direct fresh or de novo investigation and, if necessary, even by another independent investigating agency. As already noticed, this is a power of wide Z I Dr.YLRJ Crl.P.No 7810 of 2025 Dt.31.07.2025 plenitude and, therefore, has to be exercised sparingly. The principle of the rarest of rare cases would squarely apply to such cases. Unless the unfairness of the investigation is such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the court, the court should be reluctant to interfere in such matters to the extent of quashing an investigation and directing a "fresh investigation". 43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct "further investigation”, "fresh" or "de novo" and even “reinvestigation". "Fresh", "de novo and reinvestigation” are synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the power of transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends ofjustice so demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this power has to be exercised by the superior courts great circumspection." very sparingly and vrith 32. I he Hon ble Apex Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala'’, at para No.24 held as under: “24. From a plain reading of the above section , submission of police report under sub-section It IS evident that even after (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right of "further" investigation under sub-section (8) but not fresh investigation" or "reinvestigation". That the Government of Kerala was also conscious of this position is evident from the fact that though initially it stated in the Explanatory Note of their notification dated 27-6-1996 (quoted earlier) that the consent was being withdrawn in public interest to order a reinvestigation" of the case by a special team of State police officers, in the amendatory notification (quoted earlier) it made it clear that they wanted a further investigation of the case" instead of “reinvestigation of the case". The dictionary meaning of "further" (when used as an adjective) is "additional- more; supplemental". “Further” investigation therefore is the continuation of . w T "^^esf/gat/on and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion w/e have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) c,early envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency .has to forward to the Magistrate a “further" report or reports — and not fresh report or reports - regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation. Once it is accepted - and it has got to be accepted in view of /-headap Dorji [1994 Supp (2) SCO 116 : 1994 SCO (Cri) J e ^-! undertaken by CBI pursuant to a consent granted under Section 6 of the Act is to be completed, notwithstanding withdrawal of the consent, and that "further investigation” is a continuation of such investigation which culminates in a further police report under sub-section (8) or section 173, it necessarily means that withdrawal of consent m the instant ^ investigate into the case. To put It differently, if any further investigation is to be made it is the CBI alone which can do so, for it was entrusted to investigate into the case by the State ‘'(1398)5 30 0 223 22 Dr.YLR.J Crl.P.No.7810of2025 Dl. 31.07.2025 Government. Resultantly. the notification issued withdrawing the consent to enable the State Police to further investigate into the case is patently invalid and unsustainable in law. In view of this finding of ours we need not go into the guestions, whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act applies to the consent given under Section 6 of the Act and whether consent given for investigating into Crime No. 246 of 1994 was redundant in view of the general consent earlier given by the State of Kerala." 33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar^, at para No.17 held as under: “17. From a plain reading of sub-section (2) and sub-section (8) of Section 173, it IS evident that even after submission of the police report under sub section (2) on completion of the investigation, the police has a right to “further" investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173 but not “fresh investigation" or “reinvestigation”. The meaning of “further” is additional, more, or supplemental. “Further" Investigation, therefore, is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. ” The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat®, at para No. 13 held as under: 34. “13. In Ram Lai Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 see (Cri) 479 : AIR 1979 SC 1791] it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognisance has been taken by the court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, It may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case, that the police should inform the court and seek format permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law, if there is necessity for further investigation, the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial well as effective justice. IVe make It clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case. ” as "(2009) 6 SCC 346 "(2004) 5 SCC 347 23 Dr. YLR.J CriP.No.7810of2025 Dt. 31.07.2025 35, The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar^, at para Nos.7 & 8 held as under; “7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation. This was highlighted by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala [(1998) 5 SCC 223: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1291] . It was, inter alia, observed as follows ; (SCC p. 237, para 24) "24. The dictionary meaning of ‘further’ (when used as an adjective) is ‘additional; more; supplemental’. ‘Further’ investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a ‘further’ report or reports—and not fresh report or reports—regarding the 'further' evidence obtained during such investigation.’’ 8. In view of the position of law as Indicated above, the directions of the High Court for reinvestigation or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible. We. therefore, direct that instead of fresh investigation there can be further investigation if required under Section 173(8) of the Code. The same can be done by CB CID as directed by the High Court. ’’ 36. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh^ at para No.49 held as under: “49. We are conscious of the fact that though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or re investigation, submission of the charge-sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no .means, be a prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analysed to decide the needfulness of further investigation investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent Investigating agency.” or re- (2008) 5 see 413 (2023) 12 sec 592 24 Dr. YLR.J CrI.P. No.7810 OI2025 Dr. 31.07 2025 37. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar^ at para No.45 held as under; 45. For what has been noticed hereinbefore, we could reasonably cull out the principles for application to the present case as follows: 45.1. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to ensure a fair trial and that would commence only after a fair and just investigation. The ultimate aim of every investigation and inquiry, whether by the police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that the actual perpetrators of the crime are correctly booked and the innocents are not arraigned to stand trial. 45.2. The powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation in terms of Section 156CrPC have been recognised, which, in turn, include the power to order further investigation in terms of Section 173(8)CrPC after receiving the report of investigation. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the Magistrate, which be exercised on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. 45.3. Even when the basic power to direct further investigation in a case where a charge-sheet has been filed is with the Magistrate, and is to be exercised subject to the limitations of Section 173(8)CrPC. appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482CrPC exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigatio n The provisions of Section 173(8)CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied (hat such a course necessary to secure the ends of justice. 45.4. 45.4. Even when the wide powers of the High Court in terms of Section 482CrPC are recognised for ordering further investigation reinvestigation, such powers are to be exercised sparingly, circumspection, and In exceptional cases. 45.5. The powers under Section 482CrPC untrammelled and are essentially for the purpose of real and substantial justice. While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other authorities. For example, the High Court cannot Issue directions to the State to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what provision of law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further investigation or reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to investigate the case only from a particular angle. In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted." is to in an could be IS or with are not unlimited or ’(2023) 1 SCO 48 25 Or.YLR.J Cri.P_No.7810 of 2025 Dr. 31.07.2025 38. The Hon ble Apex Court State of A.P. v. A.S. Peter^'', at para Nos.16 & 17 heid as under: “16. Even in regard to an independent investigation undertaken by the police authorities, it i/vas observed: (Narang case {(1979) 2 SCC 322 ■ 197° see (Cri) 479], SCC p. 338, para 21) “21. .. . In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 of the 1898 eode, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light. Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation." 17. It is not a case where investigation was carried out in relation to a separate conspiracy. /\s allegations had been made against the officer of a local police station in regard to the mode and manner in which investigation was carried out, a further investigation was directed. The court was informed thereabout. Although, no express permission was granted, but evidently, such a permission was granted by necessary implication as further proceeding was stayed by the learned Magistrate. It Is also not a case where two charge-sheets were filed before two different courts. The court designated to deal with the matters wherein investigation had been carried out by CIO, is located at Chittoor. It is In the aforementioned situation, the Sessions Judge transferred the case pending in the Tirupati Court to the Designated Court at Chittoor. Cognizance of further offence had also been taken by the Chittoor Court. ’’ Even as seen from the averments of the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer on 14.04.2023, there is a reference about analyzing the call data of the accused but there is no reference about analyzing the call data of the deceased and others. The investigating officer sought permission for conducting further investigation to get some more technical and scientific evidence. If further investigation is ordered no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner for the simple reason that the Petitioner has already been arrayed accused and a charge sheet was also filed against him. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi’s case, relied on the learned Senior Counsel, also at para No. 11 39. as '“(2003) 2 see 383 26 Dr.YLR.J CrI. P. No.7810of 2025 Ot.31.07.2025 held that the investigating agency is competent to file a supplementary report to its primary report in terms of Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ It is further held at para No.15 that further investigation is where the investigating officer obtains further oral or documentary evidence. It is the continuation of a previous investigation and therefore it is understood and described as a further investigation. The scope of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. The basis is the discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of the same offence and chain of events relating to the same incidental occurrence thereto. It must be understood in complete contradistinction to a reinvestigation, fresh or de novo investigation. At para No. 16 in Vinay Tyagi’s case it was further held that a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the suspect or an accused has a right to have a just and fair investigation and trial. This principle flows from the constitutional mandate contained in Article 21 and 22 of Constitution of India. If the investigation is unfair, tainted, mala fide and smacks of foul play the Courts would set aside such an investigation and direct fresh or de novo investigation and if necessary, even by another independent investigating agency. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi’s case while quoting the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of lndia^\ held that in each situation to do justice between the parties and to instill 40. 41. (1992) 1 see 397 Ti Dr.YlR.J CriP.No 7810 of 2G25 Dt-31.07.2025 confidence in public mind it may become necessary to pass such orders. The contention or the grievance or the suspicion of the mother of the deceased is that the deceased sustained 31 external injuries and 3 internal injuries and it was not possible for the accused alone to cause those fatal injuries without the participation of other culprits. The earlier investigating officer in the case concluded that the accused alone caused the above-mentioned injuries. The investigating officer in his charge sheet concluded that the deceased was iost seen alive in the company of the accused and the deceased was found dead in the car of the accused. If further investigation is conducted on technical and scientific evidence as desired by Respondent No.2 in his petition before the Trial Court, the truth would come out. The object of conducting investigation is to find out the truth and bring the real culprits to the book. The object of conducting the trial is to find out the truth and punish the real culprits. 42. As observed supra, the petitioner is already arrayed as the sole accused and charge sheet was filed against him. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if further investigation alone is conducted by Respondent No.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hemendhra Reddy’s case supra held at para-No.85.4 that there is nothing in ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ At para-No.68 it is also held that even without any direction from the Court, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation even after the Court takes cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. 28 Dr.YLR.J CrI. P. No. 7810 of 2025 Dt.31.07.2025 43. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi’s case clarified what further investigation is in terms of Section 173(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.' Further investigation means the investigating officer is obligated to discover further oral and documentary evidence alone. It is the continuation of a previous investigation that is why it is understood and described It is a kind of continuation of the evidence. Be that as further investigation, previous investigation for discovery of fresh as it may, at para-No.16 of the judgment of Vinay Tyagi’s case, however, in the case of a fresh investigation or reinvestigation or de novo investigation there must be a definite order of the Court. The order of the Court unambiguously should ask whether the previous investigation for reasons to be upon. In that regard, neither the recorded is incapable of being acted investigation agency nor the Magistrate has any power to order or conduct a fresh investigation. That is primarily because it would be opposed to the scheme of the code. It is essential that even an order of fresh/de novo investigation passed by the higher judiciary should always be coupled with a specific direction as to the fate of the investigation already conducted. 44. In criminal jurisprudence, the power to direct a de novo investigation reinvestigation is vested solely in the superior judiciary and must be exercised or through a specific and well-reasoned judicial order. Such an order must categorically record why the prior investigation i be it due to procedural lapses. incapable of being acted upon, apparent bias, or mala fides. Crucially, neither the investigating agency nor the learned Magistrate possesses the jurisdiction IS 29 Dr.YLR.J Cfi-P-No.7810Gf2025 Dt. 31.0 7.2025 to initiate a de novo investigation or reinvestigation, as doing so would contravene the procedural framework established under ‘the Cr.P.C. 45. The constitutional mandate for a fair investigation and trial, rooted in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, necessitates that learned Courts intervene in extraordinary situations where the initial investigation is demonstrably tainted or so perfunctory that it violates the foundational principles of justice. In such rare and exceptional cases, the superior Court may direct a de novo investigation, thereby annul the previous inquiry and requiring an entirely fresh probe, sometimes by an independent agency, to restore public faith in the justice system. The discretion to order a reinvestigation, though synonymous in effect with a de novo investigation, may be exercised by superior courts under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ or Article 226 of the Constitution. These expressions may differ in nomenclature but are judicially treated as interchangeable when the objective is to ensure fairness and transparency in the investigative process. The superior judiciary may even transfer the investigation to another agency if circumstances so demand, provided such action safeguards the ends of justice. However, this power must be invoked sparingly and only where compelling reasons exist that shock the judicial conscience. 30 Dr. YLR.J Crl.P.No. 781 Oof 2025 Dt. 31.07.2025 G. CONCLUSION: This Court as mentioned earlier in W.P.No.24362 of 2022 gave nearly five directions while disposing of the Writ Petition filed by the mother of the deceased. 46. 47. The contentions raised by the mother of the deceased in the above Writ Petition were negated by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that they did not appear to make out exceptional circumstances for ordering the investigation by the independent investigating agency i.e., CBI. The Division Bench of this Court did not incline to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeal. In this case it is to be pointed out that the defacto complainant/mother of the deceased being the victim has not arrayed as Respondent No.3 as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh and others v. Ashish Mishra^A Further the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court constituted for Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act - cum - X Additional District Court, Rajamahendravaram. As per Section 14-A of ‘the Act’, notwithstanding anything contained in ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is an appealable one 48. '*(2002) 4 SCR 536 31 Dr YLR.J C'i P No 7810ol 2025 Dr 31 0 7 2025 and an appeal lies against that order. Further the Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C'. Be that as it may, now the investigating officer wanted to conduct 49, reinvestigation to obtain some more fresh technical and scientific evidence to find out whether any person other than the petitioner/accused was also involved in this case, since the deceased suffered 31 external injuries and three internal injuries. The investigating officer is required to conduct further investigation only for the discovery of further oral and documentary evidence. He cannot conduct a fresh investigation or reinvestigation or de novo investigation Scope of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of further oral 50. and documentary evidence. The accused/Petitioner has got a right of just and reasonable investigation and trial as recognized under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Investigating Officer is directed to conduct only further investigation. He is specifically directed not to conduct any fresh investigation or de novo investigation or re-investigation as it is against the scheme of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and file supplementary chargesheet within the period stipulated by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, these two points are answered. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Petition is 51, disposed of. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR y //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON’BLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO (For his Lordship’s kind perusal) To, 1. The Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- X Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram District. East Godavari 2. The Station House Officer, Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District. 3. One CC to Sri G.Sai Lochan, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor. High Court of AP 5. Nine (09) L.R. Copies. 6. The Under Secretary. Union of India. Company Affairs. New Delhi. 7. The Secretary. Andhra Pradesh Library. High Court Buildings. Amaravathi 8. Two CD Copies at Amaravati [OUT] Ministry of Law. Justice and High Court Advocates’ Association BSV sree HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7810 OF 2025 <!> ' ^ 1 1 AUG 2025 m <3. <o DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION