Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
49 Of Ipc Of Nandyal Taluk Police Station … vs State Of Punjab1 Vide Criminal on 1 May, 2026
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
APHC010617292018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3566]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2367/2018
Between:
1. I JAYALAKSHMI, R/O. AYYALURU VILLAGE, NANDYAL MANDAL,
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...APELLANT
AND
1. C JANARDHAN REDDY, R/O. GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, SIRIVEL
MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
2. C SANJEEVA KUMAR REDDY, R/O. GANGAVARAM VILLAGE,
SIRIVEL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
3. C ASHOK KUMAR REDDY, R/O. GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, SIRIVEL
MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
4. C MADAN MOHAN REDDY, R/O. GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, SIRIVEL
MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
5. P VIDYASAGAR REDDY, R/O. AYYALURMETTA, NANDYAL
MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
6. P NARENDRA KUMAR REDDY, R/O. AYYALURMETTA, NANDYAL
MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
7. CHALLA VADDE VENKATA SUBBAIAH, R/O. MOTHKULAPALLI
VILLAGE, SIRIVEL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
2
8. GADDAM SATHYA NARAYANA OR BUKKAPURAM SATYAM,
R/O.BUKKAPURAM VILLAGE, MAHANANDI MANDAL, KURNOOL
DISTRICT.
9. TELUGU SHIVA, R/O. GANGAVARAM VILLAGE, SIRIVEL MANDAL,
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
10. THE STATE OF A P, REP., BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPODENT(S):
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High
Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal
Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment in S.C. No. 401 of 2014 on
the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dated 9-7-2018
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
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 Special Leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed
in S.C. No. 401 of 2014 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool,
dated 9-7-2018, in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. T S ANIRUDH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VIRUPAKSHA DATTATREYA GOUDA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY,THE FRIST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
And
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2367 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)
Introductory:-
[i] This is an appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C.,
corresponding to Section 413 of BNSS 2023 directed against the judgment
dated 09.07.2018 of III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in
Sessions Case No.401 of 2014.
[ii] One I. Jayalakshmi, wife of one Late Serveshwara Reddy
(arrayed as ‗the deceased No.1′), examined as PW.5, filed the present
appeal.
Case of the prosecution:-
2. [i] The deceased No.1/ Sarveswara Reddy owned land in the
outskirts of Gangavaram Village and he sold the same to (1) one late
Chinnareddigari Padmanabha Reddy and (2) late Chennareddigari
Harishchandra Reddy for Rs.3,60,000/- and received Rs.25,000/- towards part
4payment of the sale-price. An agreement of sale was executed in favour of
the vendees. Balance sale consideration is agreed to be paid within the
stipulated time, and on such payment registered sale deed is to be executed
in favour of the purchasers/vendees. Possession of the land was delivered.
Though time was lapsed, the sale price was not paid. Appellants No.1 to 4/A1
to A4 are the legal representatives of the original vendees. Neither the sale
price was paid nor the land was vacated despite repeated demands of the
deceased No.1. Then the deceased No.1 filed a Suit in O.S.No.258 of 2005
before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Allagadda and the same is pending.
[ii] The accused party has filed a Suit. Thus the enmity was
harboring between the accused party and the deceased. Accused No.1 to 4
used to threaten the deceased to leave the land else they will kill him. The
deceased No.1 is an advocate. He did not care the words of the accused and
the Suit of the deceased No.1 was ripped to a stage of disposal and at that
time, the accused intended to eliminate the deceased No.1.
[iii] A1 and A4 discussed with A2 and A3 that, if they want to have
the lands, the deceased No.1 should be killed at any cost, and all of them
came to a common understanding. A1 and A4 approached A5 and A6, A7
and convinced them to kill the deceased No.1. A8 is the follower of A1, kept
to watch the movements of the deceased No.1. The accused noticed the
movements of the deceased No.1 that the deceased used to leave every day
from the Ayyalur village in his car, by driving himself at 10.00a.m. for attending
the Court work at Nandyal and will be back to Ayyalur by 1.00 or 2.00 p.m..
5
[iv] On 18.03.2013 at about 9.30 a.m., A1 to A11, hatched a plan to
kill the deceased/ Sarveswara Reddy, by colliding with his Car No.AP 13 H
1456 with the Mahendra Jeep bearing No.AP 09 H 0414, belonging to one
late Padmanabha Reddy. They made arrangements to escape on motor
cycles after killing the deceased No.1. A1 took motor cycle, Hero Honda
bearing No.AP 21 D 9307 of A8. A2, A4, A8 were in rear seats of Mahendra
Jeep and A3 sat in the driver’s seat of the jeep and they went to the place of
attack. A9 boarded the Zeep at Gangavaram, A10 and A11 joined the other
accused on the motor cycle AP 27 K 0736, on receipt of the cell phone call by
A1. Further, A1 on reaching Nandyal to Giddalur Road SH 56 saw the
deceased Sarveswara Reddy/deceased No.1 going to Nandyal from Ayyalur
village by driving himself; A1 informed A5 to A7, to come to the
Anjaneyaswamy temple, which is under construction at the outskirts of Ayyalur
village on Nandyal road. All the accused/A1 to A11 assembled at
Anjaneyaswamy temple in the darkness of secrecy with an intention to kill the
deceased No.1. They kept the jeep engine running since there was no self.
Accused No.3 took the motor cycle No.AP 21 AJ 3222 TVS star city from
Dudekula Dasthagiri /LW.18 [not examined].
[v] Accused were waiting for the deceased No.1. At about
12.30noon, PW.1 -Inja Thrillingeswara Reddy, PW.2-Inja Pranavananda
Reddy, PW.3-Inja Surendranadha Reddy came on motor cycle to Ayyalur
village and were taking with PW.7-Bhaskar Reddy, and LW.9-Mulla Mahaboob
at the welding shop of PW.7, then the deceased came and had a talk with
6
PWs.1 to 3 and proceeded towards Ayyalur Village, then PWs.1 to 3 also
started on bikes from the shop of PW.7 to go to Ayylaur village. At about
13.30 hours, A1 to A11 formed into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly-
weapons such as hunting sickles, and in prosecution of their common object
to kill the deceased No.1/Sarveswara Reddy, drove the Mahendra Jeep
No.AP 09 H 0414 in high speed and hit the Car No. AP 13 H 1456 of the
deceased, as a result, the jeep turned into turtle, A9 / Dasthgiri Reddy [herein
after arrayed as ‘the deceased No.2’] slipped and fell down underneath the
jeep and died on the spot. Car was damaged badly on its right side. A1 to A7
got down from the jeep with hunting sickles, meanwhile, A8, A10 and A11
came and took the hunting sickles from the jeep, went to the car of the
deceased and pulled him down from the car. The deceased started running
towards the house of PW.4/K.Sivamma. They chased, surrounded and
attacked the deceased No.1. A1, A2, A3 and A10 hacked on right side neck
of the deceased No.1., with hunting sickles. A4, A5 and A11 hacked on the
head and back of the deceased with hunting sickles. A6, A7, A8 hacked the
deceased on the head and back of the deceased with hunting sickles. Later
A1 to A8, A10 and A11 hacked the deceased indiscriminately with hunting
sickles, resulting death of the deceased No.1. PW.4 tried to intervene but the
accused threatened her.
[vi] PWs.1 to 3 witnessed the occurrence of accused attacking the
deceased, out of fear they did not intervene. PW.13-P.Rama Krishna also
witnessed the occurrence and intercepted to save the deceased, then A1,
7
hacked PW.13 on right knee with hunting sickle and beat on the mouth of
PW.13 with hunting sickle, resulting in loosening of three lower teeth and
breakage of edges of two upper teeth, A7 hacked on the right side of the
head, near right ear of PW.13, A3 beat him with reverse side of hunting sickle
on the shoulders of PW.13.
[vii] PW.8 and LW.11/Mallanna Jamalaiah, (not examined since died)
also witnessed the occurrence. PW.10 -U.Gurumurthy, PW.11-H.Maddilety,
PW.12 -B.Jambulu, LW.16-Sk. Haneef (not examined) were sitting on the
tank-bund near Mosque at Ayyalur Village. They saw A3 and A1 on one
motor cycle driven by A3; A10 and A4 on one motor cycle driven by A10, and
A2, A11 and A8 on one motor cycle driven by A2 and proceeding towards
Giddalur showing hunting sickles to them and shouting that ―Sarveswra Reddy
pani ayipojesinamu‖. A5, A6 and A7 with hunting sickles escaped towards the
house of A5 and from there escaped from the village.
[viii] On the same i.e., on 18.03.2013 at about 15.10 hours on the
strength of complaint/Ex.P1 of PW.1, LW.32/D.Ramu, the Sub Inspector of
Police of Nandyal Taluk (Rural) Police Station (not examined and given up),
registered a case in Cr.No.54 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w
149 of IPC of Nandyal Taluk Police Station vide FIR Ex.P31.
[ix] Inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted in
the presence of panchas and PWs.1 to 3, PW.5 (relatives of the deceased No.1),
Ex.P31 is the inquest report. Thereafter, post mortem over the dead body of
the deceased No.1 was conducted by PW.21, the Civil Assistant Surgeon and
8
he opined that the deceased died due to injury to vital organs i.e., spinal cord
and brain. LW29/Dr.R.Manasa, who conducted autopsy over the dead body
of the A9/deceased No.2, opined that the cause of the death is due to liver
laceration and shock. Ex.P29 is the Postmortem Certificate of deceased No.1.
[x] Further, PW.19/Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Nandyal
who treated the injured – PW.13 and found two grievous injuries. Ex.P27 is the
wound certificate of PW.13. As per PW.19, condition of PW.13 was serious
and he was referred to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better
treatment. Ex.P28 is the Discharge Summary of PW13.
[xi] Mahindra Jeep in which the accused travelled is M.O.2 and
M.O.3 is the blue colour Hyundai Car bearing No.AP13 H 1456 seized by
PW.22; the motor cycle of PW.13, injured eye witness was seized in the
presence of PW.14 and PW.15 under Ex.P35 – the seizure Panchanama and
the statement of PW.13, injured eye witness was recorded by PW.22.
[xii] On credible information, A1, A3, A4, A8, A10 and A11 were
arrested and on their confession (7) hunting sickles and M.O.4 to 10 (3) motor
cycles M.Os.11 to 13, were seized. A2 was arrested on 13.05.2013, A6 and
A7 were arrested on 17.05.2013 and on their confession, seized three (3)
hunting sickles under M.Os.18 to 20. Statements of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.13
were got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate.
[xiii] The investigation disclosed that the accused formed into unlawful
assembly with the common object of eliminating the deceased No.1, and
murdered the deceased No.1 and in that process, attempted to eliminate
9
PW.13 and caused him grievous injuries, while committing murder,
intimidated PW.4, hence, they are liable for the offences in terms of Sections
148, 149, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 326 r/w 149, 326 r/w 149 and 506 IPC.
TRIAL:-
3. Accused No.9 referred as deceased No.2 died prior to filing of charge
sheet.
4. In succinct, there are (8) charges framed against the accused;-
[i] Charge under Section 148 against A1 to A8, A10 and A11 along
with A9. However, A9 is no more.
[ii] Charge under Section 302 IPC against all the accused. But A9 is
no more.
[iii] Charge under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC is against all the
accused. A9 is died during the alleged incident.
[iv] Charge under Section 307 IPC (for causing hurt to PW.13)
against A1, A3 and A7 for attempting to murder and causing hurt.
[v] Charge under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC against A2, A4 to A6, A8,
A10, A11 along with A1, A3 and A7 (specific overt acts as to causing injuries).
[vi] Charge under Section 326 of IPC is against A1,A3 and A7.
[vii] Charge under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC is against the accused
other than A1,A3 and A7.
[viii] Charge under Section 506 r/w 149 of IPC against all the accused
along with A9.
10
5. Case against A5, is abetted during the pendency of trial. Case was
proceeded against the remaining accused. Learned Sessions Judge
acquitted all the accused of all the charges.
Appeal:-
6. PW.5-wife of the deceased is before this Court disputing the judgment
of acquittal.
7. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned senior counsel assisted
by Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/PW.5, learned
senior counsel Sri S.NagaMuttu assisted by Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda,
learned counsel for the respondents/accused and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
Extensive arguments are submitted by both sides.
Arguments in the appeal:-
8. (1) Arguments for the appellant:-
Evidence of PW.13, an injured eye witness is crucial and injuries on him
were proved with the evidence of PW.19 and PW.20. Learned Sessions
Judge, erroneously discarded the evidence of PW.13. The evidence of PW.8
corroborates the evidence of PW.13. The findings of Sessions Judge are not
correct; therefore, the judgment of the acquittal require interference and
reversal in the light of the evidence of eye witness as there is no standard
statutory rule that there shall be number of witnesses. Eye witness version if
even it is a case of single eye witness, the same can be relied on to convict
the accused.
11
[ii] The testimony of injured eye-witness generally carries significant
evidentiary weight, and such testimony cannot be dismissed as unreliable,
unless there are substantial discrepancies. The observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the following cases are relevant:-
(A) In Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo Vs. State of Punjab1 vide Criminal
Appeal No.1318 of 2012 decided on 25th September 2024 vide
para 12, which reads as follows:-
―12. Also, it is worth indicating that P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5 are ―injured
witnesses‖ or ―injured eye-witnesses‖ in this case. The sworn testimonies
provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight.
Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid
and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their
credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to
the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not
warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. Therefore, the suspicion raised by
the appellants regarding the genesis of the case is rendered unfounded.
(B) In Balu Sudam Khalde vs State Of Maharashtra2 – para 26
and 27:-
―26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be
appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts
are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place
of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material
contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be
believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape
and falsely implicate the accused.
1
2024 Supreme(SC) 832
2
Live law SCC 279; 2023 Supreme(SC) 29526,
12
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value
and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be
discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account
of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in
the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or
embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not
the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken
into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of
memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two
principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it
is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such
situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed
to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable
or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations,
circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or
established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or
to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the
value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases
where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the
accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is
inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case
and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account
while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.‖
(C) For the similar preposition as to appreciating the value of the
eye witness, and also the pattern of appreciation of oral evidence in
Sessions Cases, certain observations are made by the Hon’ble Apex
13
Court, in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State Of Gujarat3 vide para 5
to 7, which read as follows:-
―5. …. It is a pure finding of fact recorded by the Sessions Court and
affirmed by the High Court. Such a concurrent finding of fact cannot be
reopened in an appeal by special leave unless it is established : (1) that the
finding is based on no evidence or (2) that the finding is perverse, it being
such as no reasonable person could have arrived at even if the evidence
was taken at its face value or (3) the finding is based and built on
inadmissible evidence, which evidence, if excluded from vision, would
negate the prosecution case or substantially discredit or impair it or (4)
some vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the
convict has been overlooked, disregarded, or wrongly discarded. The
present is not a case of such a nature. The finding of guilt recorded by the
Sessions Court as affirmed by the High Court has been challenged mainly
on the basis of minor discrepancies in the evidence. We do not consider it
appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of
the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly
highlighted by learned Counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance
cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious :
―(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not
as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The
witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has
an element of surprised. The mental faculties therefore cannot be
expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one
may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its
image on one person’s mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part
of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and
reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can
only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to
expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an
occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess-work on the
spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect3
(1983) 3 SCC 217
14people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.
Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from
person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the
sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short
time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when
interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the
court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel
and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence
of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.
The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on
account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the
witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence
witnessed by him — Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence
mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.‖
6. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the
basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue
importance. More so when the all important ―probabilities factor‖ echoes in
favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.
7. It is now time to tackle the pivotal issue as regards the need for insisting
on corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix in sex offences. This
Court, in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan [1951 SCC 1213 : AIR 1952 SC 54 :
1952 SCJ 46 : 1952 SCR 377, 386 : 1952 Cri LJ 547] has declared that corroboration
is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The utterance of the
court in Rameshwar [ Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated November 15, 1976 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 832 of 1976] may be replayed, across the time-gap of three
decades which have whistled past, in the inimitable voice of Vivian Bose,
J., who spoke for the court :
“The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not
that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the
necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the
circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the
Judge, . . . The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to
the mind of the Judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and
appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every
case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand .‖‖
15
8. (2) Arguments for the accused:-
(i) The evidence of PW.13 is suffering from many inherent
contradictions. The manner in which PW.13 sustained injuries is doubtful;
material relating to the way in which he has sustained injuries is not collected.
The other eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. There is
abnormal delay in examining the witness -PW.13 and no acceptable
explanation is offered for such delay in examining him. The reasoning
adopted by the learned Sessions Judge for not giving credence to PW.13 is
acceptable and the reasoning and conclusion drawn by the learned Session
Judge are both legal and logical and not suffering from any defect, therefore,
no interference is warranted.
(ii) It is desirable to adopt two witness theory and in the absence of
corroboration for one witness evidence, benefit of doubt shall be given to the
accused, particularly when number of accused are involved, as per the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Sekar Bell and Vs
state of Bihar4vide para 10 and 12.
” 10. This two-witness theory has also been adopted by this Court in the
case of Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [(1997) 1 SCC 283 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 333] . It is held that there is no rule of evidence that no
conviction can be based unless a certain minimum number of witnesses
have identified a particular accused as a member of the unlawful
assembly. It is held that it is axiomatic that evidence is not to be counted
but only weighed and it is not the quantity of evidence but the quality that
matters. It is held that even the testimony of one single witness, if wholly
reliable, is sufficient to establish the identification of an accused as a4
2001 (8) SCC 690
16member of an unlawful assembly. It is held that all the same, when the size
of the unlawful assembly is quite large and many persons would have
witnessed the incident, it would be a prudent exercise to insist on at least
two reliable witnesses to vouchsafe the identification of an accused as a
participant in the rioting.
………
12. In our view, considering the large number of people involved, it would
be prudent in this case to adopt the two-witness theory. On the basis of
this two-witness theory, benefit of doubt would have to be and is given to
Accused 9, 10 and 12 inasmuch as more than one witness has not
identified them.‖
(iii) The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of appeal
against acquittal and principles governing appreciation provided in the
following cases shall be kept in view:
a. In Murugesan and Others Vs. State5 vide para 32, 35, reads as
follows:-
―”32. In the above facts can it be said that the view taken by the trial court is
not a possible view? If the answer is in the affirmative, the jurisdiction of the
High Court to interfere with the acquittal of the appellant-accused, on the
principles of law referred to earlier, ought not to have been exercised. In other
words, the reversal of the acquittal could have been made by the High Court
only if the conclusions recorded by the learned trial court did not reflect a
possible view. It must be emphasised that the inhibition to interfere must be
perceived only in a situation where the view taken by the trial court is not a
possible view. The use of the expression ―possible view‖ is conscious and not
without good reasons. The said expression is in contradistinction to
expressions such as ―erroneous view‖ or ―wrong view‖ which, at first blush, may
seem to convey a similar meaning though a fine and subtle difference would be
clearly discernible.
……
5
(2012) 10 SCC 383
17
35. A consideration on the basis on which the learned trial court had founded
its order of acquittal in the present case clearly reflects a possible view. There
may, however, be disagreement on the correctness of the same. But that is not
the test. So long as the view taken is not impossible to be arrived at and
reasons therefor, relatable to the evidence and materials on record, are
disclosed any further scrutiny in exercise of the power under Section 378 CrPC
was not called for.‖b. In N.Vijay Kuimar Vs. State of Taliml Nadu6 vide para 20 to 23,
reads as follows:-
“23. Further, in Hakeem Khan v. State of M.P. [Hakeem Khan v. State of
M.P., (2017) 5 SCC 719 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 653] this Court has considered
the powers of the appellate court for interference in cases where acquittal is
recorded by the trial court. In the said judgment it is held that if the ―possible
view‖ of the trial court is not agreeable for the High Court, even then such
―possible view‖ recorded by the trial court cannot be interdicted. It is further
held that so long as the view of the trial court can be reasonably formed,
regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, verdict of
the trial court cannot be interdicted and the High Court cannot supplant over
the view of the trial court. Para 9 of the judgment reads as under : (SCC pp.
722-23)―9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that
the trial court’s judgment is more than just a possible view for arriving at the
conclusion of acquittal, and that it would not be safe to convict seventeen
persons accused of the crime of murder i.e. under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the Penal Code. The most important reason of the trial court,
as has been stated above, was that, given the time of 6.30 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.
of a winter evening, it would be dark, and, therefore, identification of
seventeen persons would be extremely difficult. This reason, coupled with the
fact that the only independent witness turned hostile, and two other
eyewitnesses who were independent were not examined, would certainly
create a large hole in the prosecution story. Apart from this, the very fact that
there were injuries on three of the accused party, two of them being deep6 (2021) 3 SCC 687
18injuries in the skull, would lead to the conclusion that nothing was
premeditated and there was, in all probability, a scuffle that led to injuries on
both sides. While the learned counsel for the respondent may be right in
stating that the trial court went overboard in stating that the complainant party
was the aggressor, but the trial court’s ultimate conclusion leading to an
acquittal is certainly a possible view on the facts of this case. This is coupled
with the fact that the presence of the kingpin Sarpanch is itself doubtful in
view of the fact that he attended the Court at some distance and arrived by
bus after the incident took place.‖c. In Bhimapa Chandapa Hosamani V. State of Karnataka7 vide
para 24, reads as follows:-
―24. We have undertaken a very close and critical scrutiny of the evidence of
PW 1 and the other evidence on record only with a view to assess whether the
evidence of PW 1 is of such quality that a conviction for the offence of murder
can be safely rested on her sole testimony. This Court has repeatedly observed
that on the basis of the testimony of a single eyewitness a conviction may be
recorded, but it has also cautioned that while doing so the court must be
satisfied that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness is of such sterling quality
that the court finds it safe to base a conviction solely on the testimony of that
witness. In doing so the court must test the credibility of the witness by
reference to the quality of his evidence. The evidence must be free of any
blemish or suspicion, must impress the court as wholly truthful, must appear to
be natural and so convincing that the court has no hesitation in recording a
conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of a single witness.
(iv) When other witnesses turned hostile and when the solitary eye
witness is there, the evidence of such solitary eye witness must be free from
blemish or suspicion.
7
(2006) 11 SCC 323
19
(v) While appreciating of evidence of chance witness and cautious as
well as close scrutiny is necessary as held in Harjinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab8 vide para 14.
“14. The foregoing discussion leads us to conclude that the trial court
and the High Court did not consider certain material aspects apparent
from the evidence and there was almost a mechanical acceptance of the
evidence of the two chance witnesses whose evidence should have
been evaluated with greater care and caution. As pointed out by this
Court in Satbir v. Surat Singh [(1997) 4 SCC 192 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 538]
a ―cautious and close scrutiny‖ of the evidence of chance witnesses
should inform the approach of the Court. In these circumstances, this
Court need not feel bound to accept the findings. The overall picture we
get on a critical examination of the prosecution evidence is that PWs 3
and 4 were introduced as eyewitnesses only after the dead body was
found.”
9. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments
advanced by both sides.
10. Now the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:-
1) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the
accused for the charges leveled against them, beyond all reasonable
doubt? And whether the judgment of acquittal dated 09.07.2018 in
S.C.No.401 of 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, at
Nandyal, Kurnool District is sustainable or require any interference?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
8
(2004) 11 SCC 253
20Point No.1:-
Evidence-in-brief:-
11. [i] It is the case of prosecution that, due to the land disputes
between the accused and the deceased No.1, to knock away the property, the
accused has a motive to eliminate the deceased No.1 and in pursuance of
their common object of eliminating the deceased, the accused formed into an
unlawful assembly, and attacked the deceased on 18.03.2013.
[ii] PWs.1 to 5 are cited to speak about the motive etc., for accused
to eliminate the deceased.
[iii] PW.6 and PW.18 are cited and examined to speak about inquest
over the dead body of the deceased No.2.
[iv] PW.7 is cited and examined to speak about the presence of
PWs.1 to 3 at the scene of offence.
[v] PW.9 is cited and examined to speak about the witnessing dead
body of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 and the injured person-PW.13, at the
scene of offence and shifting the injured to hospital.
[vi] PWs.10, 11, 12 are cited and examined to speak about they
coming to know about the occurrence and witnessing that A1, A2, A3, A4, A8,
A10 and A11 fleeing away, showing hunting sickles and claiming that they
have finished the deceased No.1/Sarveswara Reddy.
[vii] PW.13 is cited and examined to show that he has witnessed the
incident, tried to intervene and rescue the deceased, and in that process he
has sustained injuries.
21
[viii] PW14, PW15, PW.16 and PW.17 are cited and to speak about
the inquest over the dead body of the deceased, recovery of motorcycles,
arrest of accused Nso.1, 3, 4, 8, 10 and 11 and confession of the accused
leading to recovery of weapons- hunting sickles and motorcycles etc.
[ix] PW.19 and PW.20 are cited to speak about treating the injured
eye witness- PW13.
[x] PW.21 is cited and examined to speak about the post-mortem
examination conducted over the dead body of the deceased No.1-
Sarveswara Reddy. LW.29/Dr.R.Mahasa, was cited to speak about
conducting of the post-mortem examination on the deceased No.2, but he was
not examined.
[xi] LW.31/Srinivasa Naik is the Magistrate, who recorded the
statement of PW.1;
[xii] LW.32/D.Ramu and PW.22 who conducted investigation, are
cited but PW.22 alone was examined by the prosecution.
MOTIVE :
12. [i] Purchase of property by the ancestors of A1 to A4 about several
years prior to the incident and the agreement of sale, non-payment of entire
sale consideration, demand of the deceased No.1 on accused No.1 to 4 to
pay the sale consideration otherwise to vacate the property and hand over the
same, and also filing a case vide O.S. No.258 of 2005 on the file of the Court
of Junior Civil Judge, Allgadda, and the same riped to a stage of disposal, and
22
that the deceased was not obliging the demand of the A1 to A4 to give up
dispute in respect of the property is the motive alleged for A1 to A4 to
eliminate the deceased No.1.
(ii) PWs.1 to 3 did not speak anything about at least the motive.
They are proper persons to speak about the same as they are the nearest
relatives. PW.5-wife of the deceased has stated about the sale, non-payment
of sale consideration and her husband /deceased informing the same to her
and also pendency of a civil Suit before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court,
Allagadda. During the cross-examination of PW.5, it is elicited that after the
death of the deceased No.1/Surveswar Reddy, PW.5 and her sons were
impleaded as legal representatives and continued the Suit by engaging two
senior advocates; her husband/deceased No.1 gave evidence long prior to his
death and she do not know whether her husband admitted the execution of
agreement of Sale and receiving of entire sale consideration of Rs.3,60,000/-
along with interest of Rs.35,000/-. PW.5 admitted that said Suit was
dismissed by the Junior Civil Judge observing that the entire sale
consideration was received and the defendants are protected by Doctrine of
part-performance. Some other witnesses are also examined even after the
death of the deceased. Further, PW.5 has admitted that her husband was
active in politics and that there is a faction in Ayyaluru village, apprehending
danger to the said faction from the villagers, her husband applied for revolver
license and was owning (2) revolvers. She stated that, she do not know
whether her husband is figured as accused in Cr.No.34 of 1999 for outraging
23
the modesty of a woman of Ayyaluru village and two sons of said woman bore
grudge against the deceased No.1. She has admitted that her husband faced
trial for the murder of one Balija Ramudu, form servant with an allegation that
he was an obstacle for the illegal relationship of deceased with his wife. PW.5
has also admitted that one Balamma is the maternal aunt of her husband and
she is resident of Cahbolu village and that said Balamma was murdered in the
year 1987-88 and stated that that she do not know whether one Dasthagiri
was figured as an accused and he was a henchmen of her husband.
[iii] PW.5 further stated that she know one Moosa Naganna of their
village, belonging to SC Community but denied the suggestion that her
husband sold Ac.2-00 of land to said Naganna. Further admitted that there
are 15 to 20 Harjan families are residing in the land belonging to their family
and constructing houses, and her husband- deceased No.1 taken money from
15 to 20 Harijan families. But she denied the suggestion that her husband
denied registration of the lands in favour of the Harijan families including said
Moosa Naganna and resorted to criminal activities against the women folk in
Ayyaluru village, for which the deceased had several enemies in the village.
[iv] Referring to the cross-examination part of PW.5 and her
admissions, learned Counsel for the accused would submit that the motive for
others to eliminate the deceased No.1, is greater when compared to the
motive attributed to A1 to A4. When the evidence of the deceased was
already completed in the civil suit, the attribution against A1 to A4 that they
24
had the motive to eliminate the deceased is unbelievable, and that the
prosecution has failed to prove the motive with any convincing evidence.
(v) When the prosecution relies on an eye witnesses’ theory, the motive
may not be much significant. However, it is clear that the motive relied on by
the prosecution is shacking and weak and doubtful.
Nature of death of the Deceased No.1 and No.2:
13. The evidence of all prosecution witnesses and the evidence of PW.21
coupled with Ex.P.29 – Postmortem certificate of the deceased No.1 makes
clear that the death of the deceased is due to injuries to vital organs i.e.,
spinal cord and brain and that it is a homicidal death. But the question is, who
has caused the said death? PW-21 has stated about the death of both
diseased No.1 and 2 while adding that Dr.R.Manasa has conducted post-
mortem examination on the deceased No.2, and he can identify her
handwriting. Ex.P.13 is the post-mortem certificate relating to the deceased
No.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased No.2 is A9, he died
when the incident has happened, therefore, no discussion is much necessary
as no one is arrayed as accused responsible for the death of the deceased
No.2.
Role of the accused-_Vis-à-vis- Homicidal death of the deceased No.1:-
14. (i) PW1 gave report to the Police; the deceased No.1 is his junior
paternal uncle. But he did not support the prosecution case as to witnessing
the incident along with PWs.2 and 3. It is elicited during his cross-
25
examination by the defence that PW.13 /P.Ramakrishna came in a high speed
and hit the stationed vehicle and fell down from his motorcycle and sustained
injuries by the time. PW1 went to the Police Station and the political leaders
of TDP party were there and prepared the report and his signature Ex.P1 was
obtained. He was in deep shock, he signed in it without knowing anything
about the contents, and four months thereafter at the instance of his relatives,
under in due influence, gave statement before the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Nandyal and that he did not remember what he has stated before the Junior
Civil Judge, Nandyal; he was asked to put signatures at the police station, and
that PW.13 is not an eyewitness to the accident. PW.13 has sustained
injuries in an accident; he was made as an eyewitness by the politicians taking
advantage of belated submissions of First Information Report.
(ii) PW2 and PW.3 are also close relatives to the deceased No.1.
They did not support the prosecution case. Explanation of PW3 for
164Cr.P.C. statement is that on insistment of police, he gave statement
before the Judge and that he do not know anything about the case. PW.4 is
also said to be an eyewitness having a house near the scene of offence. It is
the prosecution case that she tried to intervene. She did not support the
prosecution case.
(iii) P.W.5 is the wife of the deceased No.1, she has stated that on
information she went to the scene of offence after murder taking place; she
has stated about the motive and relevancy of the same is discussed above.
26
(iv) PW.6 is the wife of the deceased No.2 and her evidence is of no
use for dragging any inference.
(v) PW.7 did not support the prosecution case as to the deceased
No. 1 coming to his welding shop and PW.1 to PW.3 also coming etc.
(vi) PW8 and PW13 other material witnesses relied upon by the
prosecution to vindicate its stand as to the accused committing murder. The
witnesses PW9, PW.10, PW.11, PW.12, PW.14, PW.15, PW.16, PW.17 and
PW.18 did not support the prosecution case as to they acting as mediators/
Panchas, during inquest and recovery of material objects etc.
(vii) PW.19 and PW20 are the Doctors, who treated PW.13 and
PW.22 is the investigation officer. The evidence of PW.8, PW.13, PW.19 and
PW.20 require detailed scrutiny as to the said evidence showing guilt of the
accused, beyond reasonable doubt and role of the accused in committing
murder.
(viii) PW.13 is an important witness. He is doing welding works and
running a welding shop at Ayyaluru metta. The date of incident is 18.3.2013
and the time of incident is at about 12:30 to 1.00 pm, as per PW13. His
evidence is that the deceased- Surveswar Reddy talked to him while he was
going to Ayyaluru; after closing his shop, he started on his motorcycle Passion
Plus seen the deceased talking to PWs.1 to 3 at the shop of PW.7 (It is
relevant to note that PW.7 did not state anything in corroboration to PW13) and
thereafter the deceased No.1 proceeded towards Ayyaluru village. The car of
27
the deceased was at 50 feet ahead of him; people of Gangabaram village
coming in a jeep and dashed the car of the deceased. The car went 5 or 6
feet ahead and faced towards the south of the Dargah, the jeep was swered
on the road margin. A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A10 and A11 and A8, armed
with hunting sickles, went towards the car of the deceased. A2 pulled up the
deceased No.1 from the car and the deceased No.1 tried to escape and ran
towards the house of Shivamma/PW.4 (PW4 did not say anything) Then all
the accused surrounded the deceased No.1. Then, A1, A2, A3, A10 hacked
on the neck of the deceased No.1 with the hunting sickles. A4, A5, A11 are
hacked on the head; A7 hacked on the neck of the deceased and when PW13
tried to intercept, A1 hacked on the right knee of PW13, beat him on the
mouth with the reverse side of the hunting sickles. A-7 hacked him (PW-13)
on the right side of the head with hunting sickles. A-13 hacked him on both
shoulders with the hunting sickles and then he fell unconscious. Police
examined him 10 or 15 days after the occurrence, at Government General
Hospital, Kurnool.
(ix). During the cross-examination of PW13 it is elicited that the
distance between his shop and the scene of offence is ½ km.; within the 10
minutes, he can cross the scene of offence. The incident occurred at
1:30p.m.. One can cover a distance of 1 kilometer within 1 minute on a
motorcycle. He took 10 minutes to cross the scene of offence. From
12.30p.m. deceased No.1 talked to him and PWs.1 to 3 about 3 to 4 minutes
and after 20 minutes he left the shop of PW7. The deceased No.1 has
28
reached Ayyaluru village within 10 minutes after leaving his shop. He has
denied the suggestion that he fell on the road by dashing a vehicle and
sustained injuries. He stated that he do not know whether front portion,
bumper and head light of his motorcycle was completely damaged and he
has denied the suggestion that the motorcycle is seized. It is relevant to note
that during chief-examination he stated that MO.1 is the passion plus
motorcycle and he went on passion plus motorcycle. In one breath he denied
that he fell unconscious, but in another breath he has stated that he has fallen
unconscious and did not observe whether there was any damage to the car of
the diseased No.1 and that he has not seen the collusion between two
vehicles and the Jeep hitting the car of the deceased No.1.
(x) P.W.8 did not testify anything as to the role of the accused and
names of the accused, nor did he identify the accused, simply stated that 10
members came and attacked. He was declared as hostile at the request of a
Public Prosecutor. During the cross-examination, PW.8 stated that, based on
the rumors in the village he gave statement to the Police, that Gangavaram
people killed Surveswar Reddy. The evidence of PW.8 is not indicating the
role of PW.13 nor about the attack on PW13 by the accused. PW.13 did not
say anything about the presence of PW8.
(xi) As per the evidence of PW19, PW13 was brought to the District
Hospital, Nandyal and he has examined PW.13 on 18.03.2013, (the date of
incident). The incident occurred at about 1:30 p.m. Admission of PW-13 at
hospital is at 2.00 pm and PW.19 found PW.13. with the following injuries:
29
1. Compound fracture skull, intra cranial injury to brain. Franto paratail
region 5 x 2 cms extending to brain tissue with loss of skull fragment and
2. lacerated wound of right knee transversely placed 10 x5 cms skin
deep About injuries are due to heavy blunt object- grievous in nature.
(xii). Ex.P.27 is the wound certificate of PW.13 indicating that, the
injuries are grievous in nature. During the cross-examination of PW-19, he
has stated that in case of direct violence of like assault, there would be visible
external injury on the skull, but he did not find any externally injury on PW 13.
If a person is hacked with hunting sickle or an axe, there will be serious
incised injury or lacerated injury. If a motorcyclist is subjected sudden
deceleration, to be thrown out of his vehicle and to be flunk to the ground and
due to that head may sustain first with the injury. He has admitted that injury
is due to flunking to the ground or hitting the stationed object and that, there is
no external injury on the skull of PW 13. When the motorcyclist is thrown out
and falls on the ground in addition to hit there is every possibility of sustaining
same some superficious lacerated injuries and contusions bony eminences
are due to coming to contact with the ground. Injury No.2 is superficial injury
and is possible by contact through rough surface. He has mentioned in page
Ex.P27 that the said injuries will be caused by blunt object (ground surface)
only. Ground surface is also a blunt object. Axe is a sharp cutting instrument,
the reverse portion of the axe may be considered as blunt portion of axe; on
sustaining injury No.1, PW.13 fell immediately unconscious due to shock. The
compounding fractures of franto parital region may be due to indirect violence.
30
There was effusion of blood in the intracranial portion of skull. Except two
injuries, he did not found any other injuries on PW-13. He did not note any
injuries on the upper and lower teeth of PW13.
(xiii) PW.20 is another witness, who attended PW.13 and conducted
operation. His evidence is that the contusion to brain over front parital region
is due to violent blunt impact to the cranium. The evidence of PW13, PW.19
and PW.20 require consideration, in the light of the evidence of PW.22, the
investigation officer. As per his evidence, PW13 did not state before him that,
on the date of the incident, the deceased No.1 was driving his car. The
distance of Taluk Police Station and the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal
is about 1 furlong; F.I.R./ Ex.P20 reached the Magistrate at about 8.30 pm.
PW.31 does not contain the signature of the informant or complainant. As per
his part-1 C.D. file that on 29.3.2013 when PW.13 came to consciousness, his
cousin brother/PW.9 went to the Hospital and informed him about the
incident, and through PW.9 alone, PW13 came to know about the incident.
(xiv). PW9 stated in his cross-examination that at about 2:00 pm on the
date of the incident, he was informed that PW13 sustained injuries in an
accident; PW.13 fell down on the black top road at a distance 100 to150 feet
from Dargah, and he was in unconscious stage; the persons present there
informed him that, PW13/Ramakrishna came in a high speed and dashed a
stationed vehicle and he has fell down and sustained injuries.
31
(xv) The evidence of PW. 9, and the Investigation Officer- PW22, if read
together, the version of PW13 that he tried to intervene and that he was
attacked by the accused with hunting sickles, causing injuries on several parts
of the body including mouth is not believable. Therefore, his evidence cannot
be considered as trustworthy to believe his presence and witnessing the
incident.
(xvi) The evidence of Dr.PW-19 improbabilizes the manner in
receiving of injuries created by PW.13 and there exists doubt not merely
reasonable but a strong doubt as to the very presence of PW13 at the scene
of offense and he witnessing the incident. In the absence of evidence of
PW13, there is no other material available to vindicate the prosecution case
that the accused has caused the murder of the deceased No.1.
(xvii) It is interesting to note that all the witnesses, including close
relatives of the deceased did not support the prosecution case. The only
witnesses, who deposed something is PW1 and PW13 about the incident.
PW1 is not an eyewitness. Evidence of PW.13 is suffering from several
improbabilities.
15. Upon considering the entire material and in view of the aforestated
reasons and in the light of the legal position as to appreciating the evidence in
the appeal, particularly when double presumption of innocence available in
favour of the accused, in the event of acquittal by the Trial Court and upon
application of doctrine theory of prudence as to applying two witnesses
32
support, guided by the Honourable apex court in Chandra Sekar Bell and Vs.
State of Bihar‘s case, this Court is of the considered view that the acquittal
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is both legal and logical and does not
warrant any interference. The point framed accordingly against the appellant
and in favour of the accused.
16. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the
judgment dated 09.07.2018 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurnool at Nandyal in Sessions Case No.401 of 2014.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal, shall
stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
__________________________________
JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Date: 01.05.2026
Pnr
33
*HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
And
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
(Per Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2367 of 2018
Date: 01.05.2026
Pnr
34
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2367 of 2018
% 01.05.2026
# I. Jayalakshmi, r/o. Ayyaluru village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.
.... Appellant Versus
$ C Janardhan Reddy, R/o. Gangavaram Village, Sirivel Mandal, Kurnool
District And 9 Others.
.... Respondent/s
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T S ANIRUDH REDDY
! Counsel for the Respondents : Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda
Public Prosecutor (A.P.)
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2024 Supreme(SC) 832
Live law SCC 279; 2023 Supreme(SC) 29526,
(1983) 3 SCC 217
2001 (8) SCC 690
(2012) 10 SCC 383
(2021) 3 SCC 687
(2006) 11 SCC 323
(2004) 11 SCC 253
35* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMACRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2367/2018
# I. Jayalakshmi, R/o. Ayyaluru village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.
.... Appellant Versus
$ C Janardhan Reddy, R/o. Gangavaram Village, Sirivel Mandal, Kurnool
District And 9 Others.
.... Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 01.05.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the Order ? Yes/No________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY__________________________________
JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA