APHC010030012025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 41 OF 2025

Between:

RUTHALA RAMANA ALIAS RAMANA MASTER, S/O PARADESI, RETD. TEACHER, 65 YEARS. K. VELAMA, BURUGUPALEM VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, (ADDED AS CO-ACCUSED IN THE ABOVE CASE AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE COURT

VIDE DT. 11-09-2024)

...APPELLANT

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP, BY ITS PUBLIC

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH

COURT BUILDINGS AT AMARAVATHI.

2. OBBALAREDDY CHINNABBAI, S/O NOOKARAJU 59 YEARS K

VELAMA, BURUGUPALLEM VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL,

PRESENTLY ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

3. YADAGIRI MALIAYA, S/O NAGULU 76 YEARS, SC BURUGUPALLEM

VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, PRESENTLY ANAKAPALLI

DISTRICT.

4. MARRA PENTAMMA, W/O VEERANNA 63 YEARS SC

BURUGUPALLEM VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL,

PRESENTLY ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. P A K KISHORE

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

Instant Appeal has been preferred by the Accused No.9, (newly added accused) challenging the validity and correctness of the Order dated 11.09.2024, in S.C.No.10 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST Cases-cum-XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakahapatnam, by invoking the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short „Cr.P.C.‟).

2. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant herein will be referred as „Proposed Accused‟.

Facts leading to filing of the present Appeal:

3. Initially a case in Crime No.79 of 2008 on the file of Makaravapalem Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 324 read with 149 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act was registered against the proposed Accused along with 18 named accused and 10 unnamed accused. However, after due investigation, the Police filed report on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsipatnam by deleting the names of the proposed Accused and Accused Nos.10 to 19 due to lack of evidence against them. Learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the alleged offences against Accused Nos.1 to 8 in PRC No.23 of 2009 and subsequently the case was committed to the Trial Court and numbered as S.C.No.10 of 2015. After conclusion of trial and after hearing both sides, the matter was posted for judgment on 11.09.2024. On the said date, the impugned order was passed by adding the name of the proposed Accused by exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Sri P.A.K.Kishore, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Notice was served on the de facto complainant through Police as reported by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Arguments advanced at the Bar: On behalf of Proposed Accused

5. Learned counsel for the proposed Accused would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.4, 7 and 9 does not disclose the involvement of the proposed Accused in the alleged crime. Learned counsel would further submit that, P.Ws.7 and 9 are not even eye-witnesses to the occurrence of the alleged incident. It is submitted that Ex.P.8 does not disclose specific overtacts attributed against the proposed Accused. Learned counsel further submits that invoking of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C arose after the cross examination of P.Ws.4, 7, 9, 18 and 19 and when the matter was posted for judgment. Without considering the cross examination of the said witnesses, Learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order. Learned counsel would finally pray for setting aside the impugned order.

On behalf of the Respondents / State:

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution elicited from the evidence of P.W.4 about the involvement of the proposed Accused in the alleged