APHC010381672010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 520/2010 Between: 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. ...APELLANT AND 1. DODDAMREDDY MADHU MADHU SUDHANA REDDY, S/o. Malakonda Reddy Yerukollu Village, Duttalur Mandal, Nellore District. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal against the judgement in S.C. No. 394 / 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur, dt. 16-10-2008 and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused (Respondent) for the offences with which he was charged. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLAMP 2928 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 "272" days in presenting the appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused / respondent in S.C. No. 394 / 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur, dt. 16-10-2008. Counsel for the Apellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respodent: 1. N NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.520 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C. questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused herein in S.C. No.394 of 2007, dated 16.10.2008, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur. 2. Heard Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel – cum - Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the appellant– State. None appeared for the respondent/accused. 3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor – cum Standing Counsel for ACB would submit that the appeal is preferred by the State against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. Pending the appeal, the respondent/accused died. 4. In that view of the matter and in the light of Section 394 Cr.P.C., the appeal filed by the State challenging the order of acquittal against the accused would abate when accused dies. 5. This view finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Khem Singh (D) Through L.Rs Vs. State of Uttaranchal (Now Uttarakhand) & Another etc.,1. 1 2025 INSC 1024 3 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 11.1 of the judgment observed that “Sections 377 and 378 Cr.P.C. respectively deal with an appeal filed by the State Government against sentence and an appeal in case of acquittal. Such appeals are filed against the accused and therefore, when the accused dies such appeals would abate.” 7. In the case on hand, the appeal is preferred by the State Government against the order of acquittal, challenging the order of acquittal against the accused. 8. Admittedly, the accused died pending the appeal. Therefore, the appeal would abate. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as abated. This Judgment is certified to the lower Court, as per Section 405 Cr.P.C. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 27th February, 2026 cbn 4 167 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 520 of 2010 27th February, 2026 cbn