1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-06-2006 passed in S.C.No.93 of 2002 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found A1-Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao and A2-Anisetti Venkata Ramana guilty for the offences under sections 448 and 302 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to suffer RI for 6 months for the offence under section 448 IPC and imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer SI for one month for the offence under section 302 IPC.

2. Four accused persons viz., A1-Anisetti Veerabhadra Rao, A2-Anisetti Venkata Ramana, A3-Anisetti Ramulu and A4-Anisetti Sesharatnam were put on trial before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada for the offences punishable under sections 448 r/w 34, 302 and 302 r/w 114 IPC. More precisely the charges framed are:

Charge No.1: Against A1 to A4 for committing the offence of house trespass punishable under section 448 r/w.34 of IPC; Charge No.2: Against A1 and A2 for causing the death of Yanamandra Subba Rao intentionally punishable under section 302 IPC;

Charge No.3: Against A3 and A4 for abetting A1 and A2 to commit murder of Yanamandra Subba Rao punishable under section 302 r/w 114 IPC.

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood harged, prosecution examined 22 witnesses, proved 25 documents and exhibited 8 material objects. The plea of the accused is that the deceased was attacked in darkness by the husband of Bhagyavathi and his associates since he developed illicit intimacy with Bhagyavathi and taking advantage of the deceased sustaining injuries in the incident, the case was foisted against them. Contradictions in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C were marked as Exs.D1 and D2 respectively. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found A1 and A2 guilty for the offences under sections 448 and 302 IPC and convicted them accordingly by judgment dated 4.12.2003 while recording acquittal of A3 and A4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, A1 and A2 filed Crl.A.No.1324 of 2003 and whereas aggrieved by the acquittal of A3 and A4, the brother of the deceased namely Yanamandra Venkateswara Siddhanti, who has been examined as P.W.2 filed Crl.R.C.No.442 of 2004. The Criminal Appeal and the Crl. Revision Case came to be heard together and a Division Bench of this court by a common judgment dated 27.1.2006 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of A1 and A2 and remitted the matter back to the trial court for examination of A1 and A2 under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the contents of Exs.P.12 and P.18 dying declarations while dismissing Crl.Revision Case filed by P.W.2. The penultimate para of the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court reads as under:

" 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for the examination of A1 and A2 only with regard to putting the contents of Ex.P.12 and P.18 and thereafter the trial Court shall pass appropriate judgment in accordance with the law basing on the evidence on record duly taking note of the explanation given by A1 and A2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the appellants/A1 and A2 were on bail during the trial of the case before the trial court, they shall be released forthwith on the same terms and conditions as were imposed by the trial court. All the contents raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants can be as well argued before the trial court.

Crl.R.C.No.442 of