APHC010447992014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1705/2014 Between:

1. P UPPLA SRAVANA KUMAR, KRISHNA DT.,, S/O. MURALI, R/O.

SINGHANAGAR, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND

1. S TATE OF AP REP PP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court at-

Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 ofCr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Criminal Revision Case Sr., being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 06.08.2014 made passed in Crl Appeal No. 44 of 2012 on the file of the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada by confirming the sentence passed by the Ill Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dated 13.03.2012 in CC No. 394 of 2008.

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2769 OF 2014 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 dispense with the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble III Addl. Chief M.M. Vijayawada dated 13-03-2012 in C.C.No. 394 of 2008.

IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2803 OF 2014 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 enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail by suspending the operation of the Judgment dated 06.08.2014 made passed in Crl Appeal No. 44 of 2012 on the file of the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada by confirming the sentence passed by the Ill Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dated 13.03.2012 in CC No. 394 of 2008, pending disposal of the above Crl.RC.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K.M.PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1705 of 2014 The Court made the following Order:

The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”) passed by the learned Trial Court, which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court in the appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that though the prosecution has cited PW.1 & PW.2 to be ocular eye witnesses and placed before the Trial Court.They deposed during their cross examination supporting the prosecution case, but during cross examination they did not support the prosecution case. He submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has believed only examination-in-chief of PW1 and PW2 which was later corroborated by the other witnesses to record the conviction. It is the solicitor contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court is illegal. He has pointed out the relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Trial Court, wherein the learned Trial Court has categorically recorded the statement of PW.1 and PW.2 in their chief examination as well as in their cross examination. He submits that the conviction on the basis of only chief-examination of PW‟s is not maintainable. He submits the other witnesses are the interested witnesses, the learned Trial Court has based upon those interested witnesses to be the witness who corroborated the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court has also gone wrong to decide the issue.

3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised objections and submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has categorically noted the