APHC010529002010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 540/2010 Between: 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. ...APELLANT AND 1. KUKKALA POSAIAHYYA, S/O. RAMULU SANJEEVA NAGAR, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THONDA MOGALAI, S/O. SATHI RAJU DRIVERS COLONY, R/O. SANJEEVA NAGAR, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. KUKKALA SREENU, S/O. RAMULU SANJEEVA NAGAR, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. RAVULA BUJJI YELLAYYA, S/O. SUBBA RAJU R/O. GOLLAVEDHI, K.D. PETA (V), DRIVERS COLONY, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. GOLLA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O. THAMMAYYA SANJEEV NAGAR, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. NAGULURI PRASAD, S/O. VENKATA RAMANA SANJEEV NAGAR, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. GURUGU VISHNU, S/O. VIDYA SAGAR R/O. DOOR NO. 72-14, GANDREDUVARI VEEDHI, GOKAVARAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 ...RESPODENT(S): Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment in S.C.No. 95/2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Yellamanchili, dated 21-6-2008 and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enhance the sentence awarded to the accused (Respondents) for the offences with which he was charged. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLAMP 2321 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of "258" days in presenting the appeal for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused/respondents in S.C. No. 95/2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Yelamanchili, dated 21-6-2008. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRI K. SANDEEP, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M. SURYA KUMAR The Court made the following: J U D G M E N T 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the Judgment dated 21.06.2008 passed in S.C.No.95 of 2007 on the file of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Yelamanchili (for short, ‘the trial Court’), wherein the Respondents/Accused 1 to 6 were convicted for the offence under Section 395 of IPC and Respondent No.7/A.7 was convicted for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Appellant/State and learned counsel for the Respondents/A.1 to A.7. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the State has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment passed by the trial 3 Court, seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the Respondents/Accused. 4. The trial Court in its judgment dated 21.06.2008 found the A.1 to A.6 guilty for the offence under Section 395 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four (4) years each and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each. Further, A.7 is convicted for the offence under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. 5. Dissatisfied with the sentence imposed by the trial Court, the State preferred the present appeal, seeking imposition of the maximum punishment for the offences with which the Respondents/Accused were charged. In the meantime, A-1 to A-7 preferred an appeal in Crl.A. No. 54 of 2008, on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate Court'), challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court, vide judgment dated 30.01.2008 in Crl.A. No. 54 of 2008, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the Respondents/A-1 to A-7. The State did not prefer any appeal against the judgment rendered in Crl.A. No. 54 of 2008. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds force in the submission made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as the Respondents/A-1 to A- 7 that the present appeal has become infructuous. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders granted earlier shall stand vacated and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 02.09.2025. MS 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.540 of 2010 Date: 02.09.2025 MS