IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARANjWRJg TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUAR^^^® TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 8585 OF 2022 & 6570 OF ?n77 li* Vv’lV Ci TV 'yj CRIMINAL PETITION NO. a585 OF 2022 Between: 1. POOJARI RAMAIAH S/o. Kondaiah, Aged about 51 Years. R/o.D.No.2/142, Chapadu Village and Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District 2. Poojari Kondamma W/o.Ramaiah, Aged about 45 Years, R/o.D.No.2/142, Chapadu Village and Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1 & 2 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor Through Chapadu P.S., YSR -(Kadapa Dist, High Court of Andhra Pradesh afAmaravati 2. Poojari Padma Sree, D/o.Kondajah, Aged about 25 Years. Chapadu Village and Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District ...RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANTS R/o. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in S.C.No.100 of 2017 on the file of the Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa Proddatur and quash the same. at s'" ■' ■■ 'ijKl I.A. fiOfflff 2022 / under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the cifcumstances stated in the Memdfandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the certified copy of the Charge sheet in S.C.No. 100 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, in the interest of justice. [.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in S.C.No. 100 of 2017 on the file of the Hon’ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482” of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased tp pass extension of interim order dated 06-10-2023 in CrI.P No. 8585 of 2022., I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under 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 pass extension' of interim order dated 30.04.2024 in CrI.P.No. 8585 of 2022. ' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandurh of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advo'cate for the Petitioners and the PubliP Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Sai Kiran Gudiseva, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. ■,v CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6570 OF 2Q22 Between: 1. Rajoli Maheswara Reddy @ Maheswar Reddy, S/o. Rajolj Ramajog Reddy, Aged about Years, R/o.D.No.1/154, Chapadu Village and Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District j- , „ . 2. Rajoli Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.Cbinna Bayapu Reddy, Aged about 47 Years, R/o.D.No. 1/158/A, Chapadu Village and Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos. 3 & 4 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor Through | Chapadu P.S., YSR (Kadapa) Dist, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at j Amaravati 2. Poojari Padma Sree, D/O.Kbndaiah, Aged about 25 Years; R/o. Chapadu Village and Mahdal,‘YSR (Kadapa) District i ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition^ the High Court may be pleased to caliTor.the records in S.C.No. 100 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble II Additionabpistrict & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur and quash the same. - ^ I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition; the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the certified copy of thd - Charge sheet in S.C.No. 100 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, in the interest of justice. 1 I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the j circumstances stated in the Memorahdum of Grounds of Criminal Petitioni the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in S.C.No. 100 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memdran^um of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass extension of interim order dated 06.10.2023 in CrI.P.No. 6570 of 2022 I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition^ the High Court may be pleased to pass extension of interim order dated 30.04.2024 in Cr|.P.No.6570 of 2022. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Sri DV Sasidhar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following F APHC010577082022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 8585 & 6570/2022 Criminal Petition No.8585 of 2022 Between: 1.POOJARI RAMAIAH, S/0. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. R/O.D.No.2/142, CHAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. 2.POOJARI KONDAMMA, W/O.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2/142, CHAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGH CHAPADU P.S., YSR (KADAPA DIST, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2.POOJARI PADMA SREE, D/O.KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. R/0. CHAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Criminal Petition No.6570 of 2022 Between: 1.RAJOLI MAHESWAR REDDY, S/0. RAJOLI RAMAJOG REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1/154, CHAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL. YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT 2. RAJOLI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S/O.CHINNA BAYAPU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/0.D.N0.1/158/A. CHAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGH CHAPADU P.S., YSR (KADAPA) DIST, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2.POOJARI PADMA SREE, D/O.KONDAIAH. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/ O. CHAPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 1^. . 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.SAI KIRAN The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 and 3 & 4 respectively, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in S.C.No.100 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 509 and 305 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. 2. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. Though Sri Sai Kiran, learned counsel filed vakalat for Respondent No.2, they did not choose to submit any arguments. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, even on the face of the record, no offence is made out against the Petitioners under Section 305 IPC. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, Accused No.1 and the father of the deceased girl are own brothers. The deceased at the time of her death, was a minor. It is submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 22.01.2016 and the deceased girl died on 26.01.2016 while 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 3 taking treatment in Government Hospital, Kurnool. Learned counsel would further submit that Section 305 IPC has no application to the facts of the present case. There is a property dispute between the two families. The alleged incident occurred at 7.15 a.m., on 22.01.2016 and in that incident, Accused Nos.1 and 2 alleged to have beaten the deceased, her mother and sisters. It is alleged against Accused No.1 that he along with Accused Nos.2 to 4 uttered against the deceased, her mother and sisters that it was better to go and die, while a tussle was going on. It is further submitted that, to attract the offence under Section 305 IPC, some positive act of instigation should be there. In the absence of such material, the case against the Petitioners for the offence under Section 305 IPC has to be quashed. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the statements which were recorded by the Police during investigation are hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. Hence, the statement of the deceased which is recorded by the Police, cannot be considered, since, the witness is not alive to speak about the said statement in the light of the hindrance under Section 162 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would finally submit that, the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners for the offence under Section 305 IPC has to be quashed. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are clear 4. allegations against the Petitioners to continue the proceedings for the offence Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would under Section 305 IPC also, further submit that the dying declaration of the victim girl has been recorded by the learned Magistrate on the request of the Police. The deceased was ! ot 4 about 17 years at the time of the incident. It is submitted that, since the deceased was a minor and while the tussle was going on, immediately she poured kerosene and committed suicide. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would finally submit that the contentions raised in the present petition are the matter of defence and that cannot be appreciated by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material 5. placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the deceased while she was taking treatment in the hospital. The deceased girl was initially taken to Proddatur hospital and then for better treatment, she was shifted to Kurnool where she succumbed to burn injuries. The record further shows, basing on the statement which was recorded by the Police while the deceased girl was in the hospital, initially a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 509 IPC and a case of woman burns. Subsequently, after her death, the Section of Law was altered by adding Section 305 IPC also. Be that as it may, during investigation, on 22.01.2016 the statement of the deceased was also recorded by the investigating officer in this matter. So, the material would show that, the staternent of the deceased as an informant, which was recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C immediately after registration of the crime and also the statement of the deceased girl which was recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C are available on record. 5 cannot be any dispute about the legal position that F.I.R is not by of evidence and the statement of the informant 6. There itself a substantial piece cannot be considered directly as evidence unless the witness deposes before of corroboration under Section 157 of be useful for the defence to contradict the the Court on oath. It is for the purpose the Evidence Act and it may evidence under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Needless to say that, if the statement of the informant faiis within the purview of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, which is an exception, to a bar under Section 162 of the Code. The same can be considered as a reievant 7. fact under Evidence Act. It is apt to mention that, if the death of a person is doubt, Section 32 of the not due to the injuries caused by the Accused, no Evidence Act has no application. For example, the De facto Complainant in a the evidence, died which is a natural death, in such a case, before giving of the informant cannot be considered under circumstance, that statement Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Such being the case, the Police Officer, who recorded the statement of the informant, can speak before the Court to the to the Police Station and gave such report. effect that the informant came he cannot speak about the truth or otherwise of the said statement However, Code further emphasizes, a bar against the recorded by the Police during the because, it is a hearsay. The statements of the witnesses, which were ( of Section 162 Cr.P.C. The exceptions to course of investigation by virtue Section 162 Cr.P.C are Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act in case, when that person died due to the injuries alleged to have been suffered in the hands of 6 the Accused death and the another i the information 0 or the said person explained the circumstances leading Evidence Act in case of discovery of a to his/her instance is Section 27 of the extracted from the Accused which leads to material fact. 8. In the light of the statements Police and also to the of the deceased as an informant td the which reveal that, while learned Magistrate, was going on between the Accused a tussle on one side and the mother and sisteils of the deceased on the other side, the deceased rushed to the house, spoken about the said incident, sich appreciate exercising the jurisdiction poured kerosene and committed suicide, words alleged to have uttered by the being the case, it is premature stage for this such words Significantly, she had Accused during the - Court to interfere and considering them under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as evidence, while 9- I"'be light of the aforementioned there is material placed the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, In the result, the Criminal Petitions Pending miscellaneous premises, this Court is of the view tHat before the Court to continue the proceedings againist offence under Section 305 IPC also along with the 324 and 509 read with 34 IPC. • 10. are dismissed. petitions, if any, shall stand closed ^™^FFICER //true COPY// To SE Pradesh GPC i. (■ HIGH COURT \ V DATED: 18/02/2025 > V ; COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.8585 of 2022 & 6570 of 2022 DISMISSING THESE CRLPs -i