APHC010700592010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 231/2010 Between:

1. S RI G. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA,, S/O SRI OBULAPPA, EGUVAGANGIREDDY PALLI, H/O AMAGONDAPALEM, PUTTAPRTHI MANDALAM, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD 3 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURTOF A.P., AT HYDERABAD, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLAMADA CIRCLE.

2. S RI P SIVAPPA, S/O SRI. P.CHENNA KESAVULU, R/O KOKANTIVARIPALLI, O.D.CHERUVU MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.

3. S MT P LAKSHMINARAYANAMMA, W/O SRI NARAYANA, R/O KOKANTIVARIPALLI, O.D.CHERUVU MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.

4. P SMT SUBBAMMA, W/O CHENNAKESAVULU, R/O KOKANTIVARIPALLI, O.D.CHERUVU MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the order of acquittal dt. 30-

11-2009, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Ananthapur District, in S.C.No.130 of 2008, and order retrial of the case.

IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 328 OF 2010 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 permit the petitioner herein to engage an Advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution U/s 24 of Cr.P.C., Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KOMMAREDDY DIVAKARA REDDY

2. K.DIVAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. -

2. PENUBALLI RAMESH BABU

3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

O R D E R:

The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), by the petitioner/complainant challenging the Judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed in S.C.No.130 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, (for short, ‘the trial Court’), whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondent Nos.2 to 4/A1 to A3, for the offences punishable under Sections

302 and 201 read with 34 of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, the deceased is the daughter of P.W-1, who got married to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are sisters of accused No.1. It has been alleged that there are some marital disputes between the A1 and deceased and there are some altercations with A2 and A3. It has been alleged that all the accused persons had been planning to perform 2^nd marriage to accused No.1 with another women. It has also been alleged that in furtherance of such plan, all the accused persons took the deceased to outskirts of their village on the pretext of answering nature calls. Thereafter, A2 and A3 throttled the deceased by pressing her neck with their hands and at that time, the deceased alleged to have raised hue and cries while A1 shutted her mouth and killed the deceased on spot. Thereafter, all the accused persons shifted the dead body of the deceased and informed villagers that she died due to snake bite.

3. After receiving information, P.W-1 and P.W-2 being parents of the deceased, went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and after completion of the rituals, the dead body of the deceased was buried. After ten days, P.W-1 owing to some suspicion, gave complaint to the Police and reasons thereby, the instant crime case was registered.

4. During investigation, the Police conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased after excavating it from the tomb. P.W-10-Doctor performed autopsy. During trial, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove the charge against the accused persons. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to an opinion that there was no direct evidence, no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstantial evidence were not so connected to implicate the accus