Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Modalavalasa Murali Krishna vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 July, 2025
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
^ *
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 years.
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.
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
1. Annepu Kameswara Rao, S/o Ramakrishna, aged 42 years, Kalinga by
caste, R/o.Dharmapuram village, resident of Rajam, Srikakulam District.
2. Annepu Ramu, S/o Neela Rao, aged 24 years, Kalinga by caste
R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District.
3.
Pedada Ammanna, S/o Suryanarayana, aged 38 years, Kalinga by
caste, R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District.
4.
Mondalavalasa Venkata Ramana, aged 35 years, Kalinga by caste
R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District.
5. Annepu Ramanujulu, S/o Jayaraju, aged 25 years, Kalinga by caste
R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District.
6. Pappala Mallesu, S/o late Latchanna, Kalinga by caste aged 25 years,
R/o.Dharmapuram Village, Srikakulam District.
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 [3528]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
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 R/0.
DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU MANDAL SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT.
5.MADALAVALASA VENKATA RAMANA, S/0. M.SWAMY OCC' NOT
KNOWN
R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE, PONDURU, MANDAL
. Nui
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 OCC:
NOT KNOWN R/0. DHARMAPURAM VILLAGE PONDURU
MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
9. META VYKUNTAM, S/0. LATE M.ADINARAYANA OCC: NOT
KNOWN
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 punish the
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
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 and Sessions Judge, (FTC)
Srikakulam District for the following among.
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.
2.
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.
3. During pendency of the trial, A.8 died and the case against him was
abated. A.1 to A.7 were tried by the learned Special Judge under the
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
4. 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
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
weapon. Thereafter, A.2 to A.8 left that place at about 02.00 A.M. on
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.
(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 on
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
from LW.1.
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 on
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.
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, On the
instructions of the Additional D.G.P., C.I.D. PW.43 took up further
investigation from PW.42. 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 were
marked through Court.
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.
12.
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.
13. 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. PW.13 worked as
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
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 confession made by
A.5 before him, but he too did not support the 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 not support the prosecution
and they were declared as "hostile'.
The only evidence remains is the evidence of the Investigating Officers
and Postmortem Doctors.
14.
In view of the above facts and circumstances as there is no legal
evidence to connect the accused /
respondents with the alleged offence,
learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the 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
2.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam, Srikakulam District
3.
The Inspector of Police, CID, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District
4.
One CC to Sri. Prabhakar Peri Advocate [OPUC]
5.
One CC to Sri. D Kodandarami Reddy Advocate [OPUC]
6.
One CC to Sri. Vinod Kumar Tarlada Advocate [OPUC]
7.
Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi [OUT]
8.
The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi
9. Two CD Copies
stu
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATED:14/07/2025
I 05 AUG 2025 m
69.
Current Section . ^
COMMON JUDGMENT
CRLA Nos. 1402 of 2017 and 944 OF 2018
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS
[ad_1]
Source link