IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1300 OF 2017.330 OF 2018 AND 508 OF 2022 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1300 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2)of Cr.P.C against the Judgment passed by the learned trial court in S.C.No. 316 of 2012 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor Between: S. Murad @ Munna, S/o. Saleem, R/o. D.No.5-803, Bandia Veedhi, Santhapet Chittoor District. ’ ...APELLANT AND The State of A.P.,, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Amaravathi. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. VENKAT RAO RAVULAPALLI Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 330 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2)of Cr.P.C against the Judgment passed by the learned trial court dated 26/09/2017 in S.C. No. 316 of 2012 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor Between: 1. Siddiq Occ; coolie, R/o. Rajiv Nagar, Tenabanda, Chittoor District. Town and 2. S.Murad @ Munna, R/o.No. 5-03, Bandia Veedhi, Santhapeta, Chittoor Town and District. ...APELLANTs / ACCUSED No. 1 & 3 AND The,State of AP., through SHO II Town PS., Chittoor. i., Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. rep. by the Public ...RESPODENT / ACCUSED Counsel for the Appellants : SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 508 OF 2022 Appeal under Section 374(2)of Cr.P.C against the Judgment by the learned trial court dated 26/09/2017 in S.C. No. 316 of 2012 on the file of the First Additional District and'Sessions Judge, Chittoor Between: Althaf @ Panparag @ S.Masood, S/o Kalesha R/o Lalugarden, Chittoor Town R/o D No Mandal Vellore District .Tamilnadu State passed aged 34 years, Muslim, 34, Karadiguda village odagathur ...APELLANT / ACCUSED No.2 AND Pnhi.^pl® Of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO II town P.S., Chittoor Rep bv its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ’ ^ ...RESPODENTS Counsel for the Appellants : SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following APHC010864362017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos: 1300 of 2017. 330 of 2018 and 508 of 2022 Criminal Appeal No.1300 of 2017 Between: ...APELLANT S. Murad @ Munna AND ...RESPODENT The State Of A. P Counsel for the Appellant: 1.VENKAT RAO RAVULAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 KSR,J & VS,J Crias 1300 2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 330 of 2018: Between: ...APELLANT(S) Siddiq And Another and Others AND ...RESPODENT The State Of A.P Counsel for the Appellant (S): 1.RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent; 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 508/2022: Between: Althaf @ Panparag @ S.masood ...APELLANT AND ...RESPODENT The State Of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Appellant: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent; 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: KSR,J & VS,J Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 Smt. Justice V. Sujatha) r.nMMON JUDGMENI: (PerHon’ble in S C No.316 of 2012 on the file of Accused Nos.1 and 3 in District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, No.330 of 2018. Accused No.2 No.508 of 2022. Accused No.3 is No.1300 of 2017. Since all these Court of learned 1 Additional are the appellants in Criminal Appeal is the appellant in Criminal Appeal the appellant in Criminal Appeal three appeals are preferred as _ recorded in S.C.No.316 of 2012 on , , , District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, this Court feels against the conviction and sentence the file of Court of learned 1 Additional appropriate to All the three accused were Sessions Judge under two charges First charge was under Section decide them by common judgment tried by the learned Additional 2. 120-B IPC against A.1 to A.3 302 IPC against A.1 to A.3 Second charge was under Section 05.12.2011 at about 8.45 all the accused having of the charges is that on ' Kannan College ground, Chittoor Substance 3. p.m. at conspired to do away the life of Durga the deceased) as he helped one Hari to marry , accused Nos.l to 3 hit the Prasad (hereinafter referred the sister of to as accused No.1 and in that process deceased with a house building stone and concrete block, because deceased succumbed to injuries, thereby they 120-B and 302 IPC. of which the committed offence punishable under Sections learned Additional of trial, the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 under After completion Sessions Judge having acquitted under Section 120-B 1P€, has . (a) 4 KSRJ & VS,J Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows; (i) The deceased and the accused are the residents of one Hari of younger sister of accused Santhapet village. The deceased helped his friend Santhapet, who had love affair with the No.1 namely Shahina, due to which accused No.1 bore grudge against the deceased. On 03.12.2011 at about 9.00 No.1 along with his family went to Peerla Chavidi p.m. accused Santhapet to offer prayers in connection with Moharram festival, where he happened to come across the deceased and a quarrel took place between them. Then the deceased abused the wife of accused No.1 in vulgar language, at that time, accused No.1 threatened that he the deceased. Later, accused No.1 with deceased, conspired with accused Nos.2 and 3 who Accordingly, on 05.12.2011, accused No.1 asked the deceased phone to come over to Kannan college ground to settle the i would kill an intention to kill the are his friends. over issues. With a view to put an end to all the issues in between them, the deceased contacted his friends Prem Kumar, Ravichandra, of them went fo Kannan college ground at about 08.30 pm. When they reached the ground, already accused Nos.1 to 3 Jayaram, Venkatesh, Bhaskar, and Devendra and all were there and all of them quarreled with the deceased and pushed him and at about p.m. though the friends of the deceased tried to convince the accused and pacify the issue, all the accused threatened 08.45 them with 5 KSR,J & VSJ Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 dire consequences in case of intervention. During the scuffle, accused No.2 caught hold the hands and legs of the deceased, accused No.1 picked up a stone and accused No.3 picked up a concrete block and both accused Nos.1 and 3 hit the deceased on his head and face one after the other and due to the said fatal blows, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, P.W.2 - Prem Kumar, who accompanied the deceased, informed to P.W.1 - G.Manigandan, who is the elder brother of the deceased, about the incident over phone. On that, immediately, P.W.1 along with his mother went to the scene of offence, observed the dead body and submitted a report to the police, which is marked as Ex.P.1. On receipt of Ex.P.1, P.W.12, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor II Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 146 of 2011 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and issued FIR, which is marked as Ex.P.8, and submitted copies of Ex.P.8 to the concerned Magistrate and other superiors, thereafter, he handed over the file for further investigation to P. W. 13. On 05.12.2011 at about 09.30 p.m. P.W.13, the then Inspector of Police, Chittoor Urban Circle, on receipt of information that one murder took place at Kannan College ground, he visited the college, found the dead body of the deceased and posted a guard at the scene of offence and returned to the Police Station, collected EX.P.8-F.I.R from P.W.12 and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at 12.00 midnight. On 06.12.2011, he served summons on P.Ws.1 to 4 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.7 paneh witness. At the time of inquest, he seized M.Os.1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 (Cement brick, foundation stone, Nokia cell phone. Blood stained earth and control earth). Fie also examined (ii) 6 KSR,J & VS,J Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 P.Ws.2 to 4 and others at the scene of offence and recorded their statements. After conducting inquest, he sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Chittoor for postmortem examination. At the time of inquest, he instructed P.W.8 - Photographer to take photographs of the deceased and the scene of offence. The said photographs with CD marked as Ex.P.3. He also prepared Ex.P.9- rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also seized M.Os.10 to 15 (Light blue colour Jeans pant. Blue colour cut drawer. Waist thread. Black belt, Copper Anklet, and Yellow Colour thread) under police proceedings marked as Ex.P. 10. P.W.11, who worked as CAS, District Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined that the deceased died due to Hemorrhage and shock due to injury to vital organ like brain leading to cardio respiratory failure. Postmortem report is marked as Ex.P.7. (iii) On 08.12.2011, on credible information about the accused, P.W.13 sent requisition to Tahsildar, Chittoor Urban to depute two persons to act as mediators, accordingly, P.W.9 and another were deputed as mediators. On 08.12.2011 at about 11.00 P.W.13 along with his staff proceeded to Kanipakam Junction a.m., situated on Chittoor Bangalore Bye Pass road along with P.W.9 and another, where they found two persons namely accused Nos.1 and 3. While they were trying to escape, P.W.13 caught hold of them with the help of his staff, then accused Nos.1 and 3 confessed that on 05.12.2011 at 08.45 p.m., they along with accused No.2 killed the deceased at Kannan College ground, Chittoor. P.W.13 recorded the confessional statement of accused Nos.1 and 3 under Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.9 and another. P.W.13 arrested accused Nos.1 and 3 under the cover of Ex.P.4 - 7 KSR,J & VS,J Crlas_13’00_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 confession and arrest mahazar, which was attested by P.W.9 and another. Thereafter, on the same day, accused Nos.1 and 3 lead P.W.13 and others to the house of P.W.5 at Obanapalle Village, who has purchased the cell phone from accused Nos.1 and 3 for Rs.300/-, then P.W.13 seized the said Cell phone under the cover of Ex.P.5 attested by P.W.9 and another and the same was marked as M.O.6.. He also examined P.W.5 and recorded his statement. He brought accused Nos.1 and 3 along with seized property to Chittoor II Town Police Station and sent them for judicial custody. P.W.13 also examined P.Ws.6 and 8 and recorded their statements. On 30.12.2011, P.W.13 sent the Material Objects with letter of advice under Ex.P.11 to the concerned Court. Thereafter, he handed over the file for further investigation to P.W.14 - the then Inspector of Police, Chittoor II Town Police Station. On 03.04.2012 at about 03.00 p.m. while P.W.14 was in Police Station, on credible information about the presence of accused No.2 at Reddigunta junction, proceeded to the said junction and apprehended accused No.2 in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 12. Thereafter, accused No.2 confessed that on 05.12.2011, he along with accused Nos.1 and 3 attacked the deceased at Kannan College Ground, and that while he was holding the hands and legs of the deceased, accused No.1 picked up a construction boulder and hit on the face and head of the deceased, accused No.3 hit with a concrete block on the face and head of the deceased causing instant death of the deceased. (iv) Further, P.W.14 after receiving Ex.P.12 - RFSL report and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against (V) \ 8 KSRJ & VS,J Crlas^l300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B 302 IRC. and 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 14, marked exhibits P.1 to P.12 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 15. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the incriminating evidence appearing against them. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined, but, no documents were marked on their behalf. 1 to they denied 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after appreciating the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused as aforesaid. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeals have been preferred. 7. Heard Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, representing Sri Venkata Rao Ravulapalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2017, Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.330 of 2018 and 508 of 2022 and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. learned counsel 8. Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel, contended that P.W.1, who gave Ex. P.1 report, was not an eyewitness to the incident. He further contended that it is an admitted fact that even as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the deceased was accompanied by six friends, whereas the accused were only 3 in number, as such the question of attacking the deceased by three persons does not arise. He further contended that though P.Ws.2 to 4 claimed to be present at the scene of offence, none of them tried to rescue the 9 KSRJ & VS,J Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 deceased or resist the accused from attacking the deceased. He further contended that when the police station is situated within 50 meters from Kannan college ground, none of the eyewitnesses gave report to the police, and P.W.2 instead of giving to the police, has informed the same to P.W.1, which is totally against the general human conduct, as such their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. He further contended that the Kannan College ground is encircled with a compound wall and there are three gates to enter into the Kannan College ground and they will be locked at 07.00 p.m. every day. Further, the compound wall of the Kannan College ground is broken to sorrie extent, through which it is feasible to enter into the ground, as such the deceased was killed somewhere else and the dead body was thrown into the ground through the broken portion of the compound wall. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, who are the friends of the deceased, is stereographic and parrot like version, which in fact creates a doubt about their credibility. He further contended that the story with regard to the deceased helping Hari in marrying the sister of accused No.1, which is said to be the motive for the incident, cannot be believed as both of them i.e. the sister of accused No.1 and Hari have married other persons. 10. He further contended that the accused did not carry any weapons along with them on the date of incident as their intention is to settle the issues between them and the deceased and his friends, but not to attack the deceased. But, when the deceased and his 11. 10 r I & VS J Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 friends reached the between the quarrel, the incident I Kannan College ground, a quarrel took place During course of in fact was not intentional. accused and the deceased. said occurred, which i 12. He further contended that certificate issued by P.W.11 deceased is fully blood stained there even as per Ex.P.7 - Doctor, the face postmortem scalp, hair of the - injuries and rest of the body, the deceased multiple lacerated ini are no other external injuries over the - as per Ex.p.7 received only crush ini injuries on the back Therefore postmortem certificate injuries on his head, and there of the deceased. are no external as such the version of P.Ws.2 to 4 cannot be believed to the extent that accused No.3 hit the deceased with M.O 1 on the back side of his head. As such, he requested this Court to allow the appeals by setting aside recorded by the learned conviction and Sessions Judge. the sentence Additional 13. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, accused Nos.1 and 2, has P Ws.2 to 4 and P.W. certificate, - which may not be contended that (earned counsel appearing for argued that even 11, Doctor, as per the evidence of With a boulder only once, cause for the death of the deceased. He further accused No.2 can be ai only caught hold of the hands hit the deceased. given benefit of doubt and legs of the deceased. as he but never as such he cannot be convicted under Section 302 of l.p.c. 14. On the other hand (earned Additional Public Prosecutor evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, incident clinchingly established opposed the appeal, who are contending that the eyewitnesses to the said i 11 KSR,J & VS,J Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 the presence of the accused and also the offence committed by them at the relevant point of time. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 also establishes the motive of the accused to kill the deceased. He further contended that there is no necessity for P.Ws.2 to 4 to implicate the accused in the present case. He further contended that the ocular version spoken by the prosecution witnesses has been corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.11 coupled with Ex.P.7 postmortem report. As such, he requested this Court to dismiss the appeals by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased. On 05.12.2011, while he was in his house, P.W.2 - Prem Kumar, who is the friend of the deceased, called him over phone and informed that his brother (deceased) was killed by accused Nos.1 to 3 at Kannan College Ground. Immediately, he along with his mother went to the Kannan College ground, noticed the dead body of the deceased and lodged report with the police vide Ex. P.1 which was registered as Ex.P.S-FIR. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that on 05.12.2011 at about 07.00 p.m. while he was at his house, accused No.1 called the deceased and informed him to come to Kannan College ground for compromise talks. On receiving the said call, the deceased called P.Ws.2 to 4 and others and informed that accused No.1 asked him to come to Kannan College ground for compromise talks and requested them to accompany him. On the same day, at about 09.30-09.45 p.m. P.W.2 called him over phone and informed him 15. 16. 12 r I . & '^S,J Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 that his brother College ground. was killed by accused Nos.1 and 3 at Kannan 1 17. P-Ws.2 to 4, friends of the prior to the incident, deceased deceased, deposed that two has helped sister of years accused No.1 in grudge p rn., when marrying Hari. due to which, against the deceased. On 03. they visited Peerlachavad accused No.1 developed 12.2011 at about 08.30 < along with the deceased to offer prayers. on seeing them. accused No.1 started quarrelling with them alleging his wife and in their presence, that he will not leave him that the deceased abused accused and he will see No.1 warned the deceased n.s end. On 05.12.2011 at about f- (P.Ws.2 to 4) on phone stating that compromise to be held at Kannan to 4 and deceased 07.00 p.m. deceased called them accused No.1 called him for a College Ground , on that, P.Ws.2 went there. By the time they reached Kannan College ground, accused Nos 1 to 3 --ale. pounced upon the deceased, an“:r^"^"" Of which, the deceased fell down as a result on the ground. accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased the face of the deceased : his sister and also abused deceased with M.O.I friends made efforts to threatened them with dire i matter, and that the deceased given by the accused Nos.1 away from the scene of offence, over phone and informed him receiving the said information accused No.1 has thrown IVI.0.2 stating that he has helped Hari on in marrying h's (A.1) wife. Accused No.3 beat the on his head. When P.Ws.2 to 4 and other save the deceased. accused Nos.1 to 3 have consequences if they interfere with the the blows accused fled called P.W.1 deceased. On mother went to died on the spot due to and 3. Thereafter, the Immediately, P.W.2 about the death of the P-W.l along with his I 13 KSRJ & VS,J Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 the scene of offence and having found the dead body of the deceased, he submitted a report vide Ex.P.1 to the police, which was registered as FIR and the same was marked as Ex.P.8.. Having analyzed the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, this Court is of the opinion that their evidence is clear and consistent to hold that accused No.1 beat the deceased with M.0.2 - foundation stone on the right side of the face three times and accused No.3 beat the deceased with M.0.1 - cement brick on the back side of his head. Further, there are no inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 to discard their evidence. This Court do not find any motive for P.Ws.2 to 4, who are eyewitnesses to the said incident, to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. 18. P.W.5 is a resident of Obanapalle village, who purchased the cell phone, which is marked as M.0.6, from accused No.1 for Rs.300/-. P.W.6 is running Navya Dairy Products situated at Jandamanu Street, Chittoor, in whose shop, the deceased as well as P.Ws.2 to 4 are working. P.W.7 is a mediator for Ex.P.2 inquest report. P.W.8 is the photographer, who has taken photos of the dead body of the deceased which are marked as Ex.P.3. P.W.9 is a mediator for the arrest of accused Nos.1 and 3. P.W.10 is a mediator for the arrest of accused No.2. P.W.11 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem. over the dead body of the deceased and postmortem report. P.Ws.12 to 14 are the investigating officer, who having registered FIR, after completion of investigation, has filed charge sheet against the accused. 19. issued Ex.P.7 Though the accused got examined D.W.1 committee member of Pes;alla Makhana, Santhapeta, to establish 20. who is a 14 KSR,J & VS,J Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 that no quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused during Peerla Chavadi festival. He has not deposed about the incident happened on 03.12.2011. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the accused. With regard to P.W.2 instead of approaching the police station, which is only 50 meters away from the scene of offence, has called P.W.1 over phone and informed him about the incident, this Court is of the opinion that as P.W.2 was aged about 26 years, P.W.3 was aged about 23 years, P.W.4 was aged about 21 years by the date of incident and as they are rustic villagers and in tender age, they are not aware how to react in such a situation and they were in a shock on seeing the attack by the accused, as such P.W.2 informed P.W.1, who is the elder brother of the deceased and who is a right person to give report to police. 21. As per the chain of events that took place before the said incident, it can be understood that the deceased along with P.Ws.2 to 4 went to Kannan College ground to compromise the issues pending between them and the accused, but they were not prepared for a quarrel with the accused. Immediately after the deceased along with P.Ws.2 to 4 reached Kannan College ground, the accused pounced upon the deceased and attacked him, which act clearly disclose that the accused have hatched a plan and intentionally called the deceased for compromise talks. In such a situation, the said action of P.Ws.2 to 4 in not resisting the accused is general in nature and this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve their version. 22. 15 KSR,J & VSJ Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 Further, merely because P.Ws.2 to 4 have worked along with the deceased, in Navya Dairy Products, situated at Jandamanu Street, Chittoor, it cannot be said that their version is parrot like version. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, who are the eyewitnesses to the said incident is consistent to the extent that accused No.1 beat the deceased with M.0.2 - foundation stone and accused No.3 beat the deceased with M.0.1 - cement block and nothing adverse was elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.2 to 4 to disbelieve their evidence, and the same is believable and inspires confidence of this Court. Flaving carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that accused Nos.1 and 3 have committed the murder of the deceased herein by hitting him with a foundation stone and cement brick. The prosecution could able to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt. After conglomeration of the entire evidence available on record and in view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded against accused Nos.1 and 3 by learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. The role attributed as against accused No.2, as per the prosecution story is that he caught hold of the deceased while accused Nos.1 and 3 were beating him, but he did not beat the deceased, which fact was also corroborated by P.Ws.2 to 4 in their evidence. It shows that accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased with the knowledge that his act is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Except the above, there is no other evidence to show that accused No.2 had any intention to cause the death of the deceased. T;herefore, the act of accused No.2 cannot 23. 24. 25. 16 KSR,J & VS,J :508 2022 Crlas_1300_2017, 330_2018, be termed as murder, which i but it only attracts Section 's punishable under Section 304 Part-K IPC. 302 IPC 26. In the result, the Criminal allowed. The appellant - Appeal No.508 of 2022 i sentence ^ IS partly against the conviction and recorded accused No.2 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor i ' I Additional District and in S.C.No.316 of 2012 by judgment dated 26.09.2017, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC modified to that of Section IS 304 Part-ll IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life i already undergo ne b' ■S modified to that of sentence 'V accused No.2. ~ accused. No.2 shall be set at liberty forthwith any other case. As the of imprisonment Therefore, the appellant - if he is not required in appellant - on bail by this Court by order dated in terms of the order dated accused No.2 has been enlarged 21.10.2024 in I.A.No.01 of 2023 ' he is directed to and the v'. State surrender before the completing the of Andhra Pradesh \ Superintendent Central Prison, Kadapa for formalities for his release 27. Criminal Appeal No.330 and 3 is dismissed, recorded by learned I Chittoor i “ 302 IPC. As the released I A.No.I of 2022 i of 2018 preferred by conviction and accused Nos.1 sentence confirming the Additional District dated 26.09.2017 and Sessions Judge, in S.C.No.316 of 2012 under Section - accused Nos.1 and 3 have appellants on bail by this Court - m Criminal Appeal No.330 been wde order dated 20.02.2023 in of 2018 and order '2016 (3) Alt (CrI.) 505 (DB) (A.P.) I 17 KSR,J & VS,J Crlas_13,00_2017, 330_2018, 508_2022 dated 19.01.2023 in I.A.No.01 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1300 of 2017 respectively, in terms of the order dated 02.11.2016 passed by a Division Bench of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Rangarao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra), they are directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa to serve the remaining part of sentence, failing which learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor shall take necessary steps to secure their presence. As accused No.3 is also appellant in Crimin of 2018, no orders are required to be passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2017 and the same is closed. /-»I A Ks ca< h\rs QOn 28. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR 1 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor 2. The IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Chittoor 3. The inspector of Police, Chittoor II Town Police Station, Chittoor District 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa 5. One CC to Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti Advocate [OPUC] 7. TwoCCstothe Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 9. THREE CD Copies psr AL HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.1300 of 2017, CLOSEING THE CRLA CRLA330 OF 2018 DISMISSING THE CRLA CRLA 508 OF 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA