^ * APHC010859972017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1402 OF 2017 & 944 of 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1402 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 64/2002 dated 20-7-2017 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) at Srikakulam and further punish the accused in accordance with law. Between: 1. Modalavalasa Murali Krishna, S/o. Ramanujulu, Aged about 46 Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Dharmapuram Village, Ponduru Mandal Srikakulam District. 2. Modalavalasa Malleswaramma, W/o. late Srinivasa Rao, aged 55 years Occ: House wife, R/o. Dharmapuram Village, Ponduru Mandal Srikakulam District. years. 3. Modalavalasa Suneetha, W/o. Ravi Kumar, D/o. late M. Srinivasa Rao, age: 40 years, Occ; House wife R/o. K. Mannaiahpeta, Chintada Post, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam Mandal & District. ...Appellants AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by. Inspector of Police, CID, Visakhapatnam, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi 2. Annepu Kameswara Rao, S/o A. Ramakrishna, aged about 42 years, Occ: Not known , R/o Rajam, Srikakulam District. 3. Annapu Ramu, S/o. A.Neela Rao, aged about 24 years, Occ: Not Known, R/o. Dharmapuram Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. 4. Pedda Ammanna, S/o. P.Ammanna, aged about 38 years, Occ: Not Known, R/o. Dharmapuram Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. 5. Madalavalasa Venkata Ramana, S/o. M.Swamy, aged about 35 years, Occ: Not Known, R/o. Dharmapuram Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. 6. Annepu Ramanjaneyulu, S/o.A.Jayaraju, aged about 25 years, Occ: Not Known, R/o. Dharmapuram Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. ' 7. Pappala Mallesu, S/o. Late Lachanna, aged about 25 years, Occ: Not Known, R/o. Dharmapuram Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. 8. Annepu Ramanna Singadu Singanna, S/o. Varahalu, aged about 22 years, Occ: Not Known, R/o. Dharmapuram Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. 9. Meta Vykuntam, S/o. Late M.Adinarayana, aged about 30 years, Occ: Not Known, R/o. Dharmapuram Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...ACCUSED Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI PRABHAKAR PERI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 : SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA APHC010079212018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 944 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the judgment of the acquittal dated 20-07-2017 passed in SC.No. 64 of 2002 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Srikakulam District Between: The State of AP., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi, (Station House Officer, Ponduru PS., Srikakulam district) ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND Annepu Kameswara Rao, S/o Ramakrishna, aged 42 years, Kalinga by caste, R/o.Dharmapuram village, resident of Rajam, Srikakulam District. Annepu Ramu, S/o Neela Rao, aged 24 years, Kalinga by caste R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District. Pedada Ammanna, S/o Suryanarayana, aged 38 years, Kalinga by caste, R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District. Mondalavalasa Venkata Ramana, aged 35 years, Kalinga by caste R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District. Annepu Ramanujulu, S/o Jayaraju, aged 25 years, Kalinga by caste R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District. Pappala Mallesu, S/o late Latchanna, Kalinga by caste aged 25 years, R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Annepu Ramana @ Singanna, S/o Varahalu, Kalinga by caste, aged 22 years, R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District. 8. Mettu Vykuntam, S/o late Adianarayana, Kalinga by caste, aged 30 years, R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District, (case against A.8 is abated as per order dated 13-09-2004) ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Counsel for the Petitioner : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 : SRI D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT : APHC010079212018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1402/2017 Between: 1.MODALAVALASA MURALI KRISHNA, S/0. RAMANUJULU, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2.MODALAVALASA MALLESWARAMMA, W/0. LATE SRINIVASA RAO, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.MODALAVALASA SUNEETHA, W/0. RAVI KUMAR, D/0. LATE M. SRINIVASA RAO, OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/0. K. MANNAIAHPETA, CHINTADA POST, AMADALAVALASA, SRIKAKULAM MANDAL & DISTRICT. ...APELLANT{S) AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CID, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HILGH COURT AT HYDERABAD. 2.ANNEPU KAMESWARA RAO, S/0 A. RAMAKRISHNA, OCC: NOT KNOWN R/0 RAJAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.ANNAPU RAMU, S/0. A.NEELA RAO, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 4.PEDDA AMMANNA, S/0. P.AMMANNA, OCC: NOT KNOWN DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL DISTRICT. R/0. SRIKAKULAM 5.MADALAVALASA VENKATA RAMANA, S/0. M.SWAMY OCC' NOT KNOWN , . Nui R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6.ANNEPU RAMANJANEYULU, S/O.A.JAYARAJU OCC; NOT KNOWN, R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 7.PAPPALA MALLESU, S/0. LATE LACHANNA OCC: . NOT KNOWN, R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 8.ANNEPU RAMANNA SINGADU SINGANNA, S/0 VARAHALU NOT KNOWN MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. OCC: PONDURU R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE 9. META VYKUNTAM, S/0. LATE M.ADINARAYANA KNOWN OCC: NOT R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to set aside the judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 65/2002 dated 20-7-2017 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge. (Fast Track Court) at Srikakulam and further accused in accordance with law. lA NO: 1 OF 2017fCRLAMP 2785 OF 2017 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 47 days in representing the criminal appeal SR no 37424 of 2017. LA NO: 2 OF 2017fCRLAMP 2786 OF 2017 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 punish the 3 grant leave to the petitioners to file the appeal against the judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 65/2002 dated 20-7-2017 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) at Srikakulam. Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.PRABHAKAR PERI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 944/2018 Between: 1.THE STATE OF AP.„ REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD, (SHO, PONDURU PS., SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT) ...APPELLANT AND 1.ANNEPU KAMESWARA RAO AND 7 OTHERS, R/O.DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, RESIDENT OF RAJAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2.ANNEPU RAMU, R/O.DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.PEDADA AMMANNA, R/O.DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, SRII^KULAM DISTRICT. 4.MONDALAVALASA VENKATA RAMANA, R/O.DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5.ANNEPU RAMANUJULU, R/O.DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6.PAPPALA MALLESU, R/O.DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 7.ANNEPU RAMANA SINGANNA, R/O.DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4 8.METTU VYKUNTAM, R/O.DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE ’ SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. (CASE AGAINST A.8 IS ABATED AS PER ORDER DATED 13-09-2004) ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to this memorandum of grounds of Criminal appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment of the acquittal dated 20-07-2017 passed in SC.No. 64 of 2002 by the II Additional District Srikakulam District for the following among. and Sessions Judge, (FTC) lA NO: 1 OF 2ni« Petition under Section 151 CPC in+h4.off^ P'"aying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ,n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 20-07-2017 passed in SC.No. 64 of 2002 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam District. lA NO: 2 OF 2ni« 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 grant leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 20-07-2017 passed in SC.No. 64 of 2002 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Srikakulam District. ^ ’ Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.D KODANDARAMI REDDY 2.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA 5 # The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) As both these appeals arise out of same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of common judgment. Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act - cum - II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Srikakulam (for short, ‘learned Special Judge’) in Sessions Case No.64/2002 dt. 20.07.2017, PWs 1 to 3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1402/2017, whereas the State also filed an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.944/2018. 2. 3. During pendency of the trial, A.8 died and the case against him was A.1 to A.7 were tried by the learned Special Judge under the abated. following charges: 1) First charge was under Section 148 IPC against A.1 to A.7 2) Second charge was under Section 120-B IPC against A.1 to A.7 3) Third charge was under Section 341 IPC against A.2 & A.4 4) Fourth charge was under Section 149 IPC against A.1, A.3 & A.5 to A.7 5) Fifth charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1 to A.7 6) Sixth charge was under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC against A.2 to A.7 7) Seventh charge was under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC against A.1 to A.7 8) Eighth charge was under Section 201 IPC against A.1 to A.7 Substance of the charge is that on the evening of 24.06.2000, A.1 to A.8, along with PW.12, met in the house of A.1 to kill one Modalavalasa Srinivasa Rao (hereinafter referred to as “D.1”), and on 25.06.2000, A.2 to A.8 4. 6 gathered at thrashing floor of A.2 and in pursuance of their conspiracy, on 08.07.2000 between 06.00 P.M. and 07.00 P.M., attacked D.1 and D.2 while they were returning to their village causing their death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 148, 341 & 302 r/w 149 and Section 201 IPC. After completion of the trial, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of all the charges. 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under; (a) All the accused are residents of Dharmapuram Village of Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. D.2 is the follower of D.1 and they are also residents of same village. All the material witnesses are also residents of the same village. PW.1 is the nephew, PW.2 is the wife and PW.3 is the daughter of D.1 respectively. D.1 was a Contractor who was developed politically and financially. The brother of D.1 was elected as Sarpanch of Dharmapuram Village on behalf of the Telugu Desam Party. His niece was also elected as M.P.T.C. Member in the year 1995. A.1 belongs to Congress Party. A.2 is the cousin of A.1. A.3 to A.8 are the followers of A.1. D.1 was getting majority / of Government schemes benefits such as Ration Cards, Old Age Pensions, Widow Pensions and Drought Pensions etc. to his followers. Same has become eyesore to A.1. A.1 intended to join in Telugu Desam Party and approached the local M.L.A. PW.10 seeking his entry. The latter denied his entry without the consent of D.1. While so, on 24.06.2000, A.1 to A.8 along with PW.12 met in the house of A.1 and conspired together to eliminate the 7 D.1. On 25.06.2000, A.2 to A.8 gathered at the threshing floor of A.2 and conspired to do away with the deceased. (b) While so, on 08.07.2000 at about 05.30 P.M., D.1 left his house to go to Ponduru. He took D.2 along with him for the sake of company. On the way, D.1 stopped his scooter near the house of LW.26 and discussed his house dispute and informed him that he will return from Ponduru by 09.30 P.M. or 10.00 P.M. A.4 said to have heard the said conversation. After departure of D.1 and D.2, A.5 went in search of A.7 and informed others that A.2 is waiting for them. A.2 sent a word to PW.12, but he did not respond as he is not willing to participate in the said attack. By 06.00 P.M. or 07.00 P.M., A.2 to A.8 gathered and were proceeding on Dharmapuram-V.R. Gudem Road by walk near sugarcane fields of A.4. A.7 went to the fields of PW.7 and cut away three Teak trees. D.1 & D.2 went to the house of PW.28 who was not available at the house. At about 09.00 P.M., both the deceased started to return to their village. When both the deceased reached near the fields of A.3 A.2 & A.4 stood on either side of the road and stretched Nylon rope, due to which both the deceased fell down on the road. Immediately, A.4 attacked D.1 on the left jaw with deadly weapon (Kathuva Boriga). Then, the other accused beat D.1 with sticks and killed him. Then, A.2 to A.8 beat D.2 and killed him. A.2 & A.3 left to Rajam which is at a distance of 30 KM from the scene and met A.1 at his house. A.1 secured the Tractor and Trailer and handed it over to A.2. The scooter of D.1 was loaded in Tractor and Trailer driven by A.2. They went along with A.3 to the scene of offence. They lifted 8 the dead bodies into the Trailer. They buried the dead bodies at Relligedda which is at a distance of 8 KM. They also buried the scooter and M.0.8 Thereafter, A.2 to A.8 left that place at about 02.00 A.M. 09.07.2000. On the way, all the accused got down. A.1 went to the house of his Driver P\/V.18 and asked him to drop A.2 & A.7 at the outskirts of Dharmapuram. On 11.07.2000, A.5 met PW.19 and disclosed stating that he along with other accused killed D.1 & D.2. weapon. on (c) LW.1, brother of D.1, made enquiries and they continued to search for D.1. He came to know the presence of two dead bodies buried in Relligedda near Siripuram Village. LW.1 informed Ponduru police 11.07.2000 about the dead bodies. At about 08.00 P.M. on 11.07.2000, LW.1 gave a report to the police. PW.41 Sub-Inspector of Police received Ex.P1 He registered a case in Cr.No.62/2000 under ‘Men Missing’. Ex.P91 is the F.I.R. On 12.07.2000, PW.41 visited Dharmapuram Village and secured presence of mother of D.2 and recorded her statement. While PW.41 was in the village, PW.20 V.R.O. informed him that some blood stains Palmyra leaf by the side of road at V.R. Gudem were found. Then, PW.41 visited said place along with PW.20 and PW.5 and noticed Palmyra leaf with blood stains, Teak stick. PW.41 seized those articles M.Os 3 & 4 under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P5. He prepared a rough sketch Ex.P92. He returned to his office and secured presence of PW.13 and recorded his statement, who received information about the presence of two dead bodies. On 13.07.2000 at about 07.00 P.M., LW.-I presented another report Ex.P2. on from LW.1. on 9 Basing on which, section of law was altered to Section 302 IPC. Ex.P93 is the altered FIR. (d) After receiving information about the presence of dead bodies, PW.44 went to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report EX.P14. He exhumed the dead bodies in the presence of P\N.20 and another. He found the dead bodies in highly decomposed condition. He also held inquest over the dead bodies in the presence of PW.21. Inquest reports are marked as Exs.P6 and 15. He sent a requisition to the Superintendent, Government Hospital, to depute a team of Doctors to conduct Postmortem at the scene of offence. On 14.07.2000, PW.37 conducted Autopsy over the dead body of D.1. He opined the cause of death was due to injury on vital area i.e., neck. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P68. He also conducted Autopsy over the dead body of D.2. He opined the cause of death of D.2 was due to “Asphyxia”. He issued Postmortem report Ex.P71 and Final opinion EX.P72. (e) On 16.07.2000, PW.44 arrested A.2 to A.4 at Tholapi village in the presence of PW.23 and another under Ex.PI 7. He recovered M0.1 scooter key from A.2. The relevant portions of confessions of A.2 to A.4 are marked as EXS.P17, P122 and P123. On the confession made by them, he seized MOs.3 to 7 under Ex.P22. He also recovered M.0.2 scooter in the presence of mediator under Ex.PI 8. He also seized M.0.8 weapon at the instance of A.3. PW.44 also arrested A.8 and seized Tractor bearing No.AP 30T 5691 and Trailer bearing No.5692 marked as M.0.9 under Ex.P23. On 26.07.2000, A.5 10 and A.6 surrendered before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam. PW.42 took custody of A.5 and A.6 for three days. On 08.08.2000, PW.42 collected blood stain samples Exs.P95 to P101 on the Tractor, instructions of the Additional D.G.P., C.I.D. investigation from PW.42. On the PW.43 took up further On 16.08.2000, PW.43 filed a Memo adding Section 120B IPC. PW.42 forwarded material objects to the F.S.L., Flyderabad along with Exs.P114 and 115. A.P.F.S.L. Report is marked as Ex.P80. After obtaining all reports and after completion of the investigation, PW.43 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 46, marked exhibits PI to PI25 and exhibited MOs 1 to 10. Exhibits X.1 and X.2 marked through Court. were 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 8. Disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned, Special Judge acquitted the accused of all the charges. 9. Heard Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants in CrIA.No. 1402/2017 and Sri M.Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.No.944/2018 and Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / Accused in both the appeals. 11 10. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents/Accused states that during pendency of the present appeal, A.4 died on 04.05,2018 and the appeal against him stands abated. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. As seen from the material, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution rests its case only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 12. PW.1 is the nephew, PW.2 is the wife and PW.3 is the daughter of D.1 respectively. Admittedly, PWs 1 to 3 are not eye witnesses to the prosecution. PW.4 is the brother of D.2. He is also not an eye witness. PW.5 is the villager and he is also not an eye witness to the incident. PWs 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 22 are the crucial witnesses in the present case. PW.11 is the Coolie, who worked in the fields of Accused, and he used to transport sugarcane of A.2 in the tractor of A.1. PW.11 was examined by the prosecution to show that the Nylon rope, which was used in the commission of offence, belongs to him. But, curiously PW.11 did not support the prosecL!tion. PW.12 is the person, who was examined by the prosecution to establish the factum of conspiracy at the house of A.1 on 24.06.2000 to eliminate D.1, also did not support the prosecution. Headmaster in Dharmapuram M^E School. He was examined to speak the motive for the accused to kill the deceased, but he too did not support the 13. PW.13 worked as 12 ' prosecution. PW.18 is the person who is said to have dropped A.2 and A.7 after commission of the offence. But, he also did not support the prosecution. PW.19 was examined to show that he kept the Tractor in the Petrol Bunk of A.1 and he was also examined to show the extra judicial A.5 before him, but he too did not support the confession made by prosecution. The last crucial witness examined by the prosecution is PW.22. PW.22 is the mediator for all the reports. He too did not support the prosecution. As such, all the crucial witnesses i.e., PWs 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 and 22 did and they were declared as “hostile’. The only evidence remains is the evidence of the Investigating Officers and Postmortem Doctors. not support the prosecution 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances evidence to connect the accused / learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the as there is no legal respondents with the alleged offence, accused vide the impugned judgment. Therefore, the Criminal Appeals are liable to be dismissed. In the result, both these Criminal Appeals are dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act - cum - II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Srikakulam in Sessions Case No.64/2002, vide judgment dt. 20.07,2017. There shall be no order as to costs. 13 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) at Srikakulam, Srikakulam District The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam, Srikakulam District The Inspector of Police, CID, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District One CC to Sri. Prabhakar Peri Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. D Kodandarami Reddy Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. stu TAC HIGH COURT DATED:14/07/2025 I 05 AUG 2025 Current Section . ^ m 69. COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA Nos. 1402 of 2017 and 944 OF 2018 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS