High Court dismissed criminal appeal challenging conviction for murder and theft. Bench upheld trial court's findings that circumstantial evidence regarding recovery of gold and weapon established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
'.P-
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH ^ o:
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
o:
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1168 OF 2015
Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court of IXth Additional Sessions Judge, at Kovvur, dated 21-09-2015 in SC No. 106 of 2014, for the offence U/s. 302 of IPC U/s 235(1) Cr.P.C, and was sentenced to suffer Life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- In case of default of payment, he shall further undergo 6 months of R.l. Further the Accused also convicted for tbe Offence of theft in dwelling house punishable U/s 380 Of IPC U/s 235(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 yrs, and both the sentences shall run concurrently and the remand period from 18-122012 to 25-03-2013 is liable to setoff u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.
Between:
Narkedimilli Srinu @ Chepala Srinu. S/o. Venkata Raju, Age: 38 yrs, Akiveedu, West Godavari District.
...Appellant/Accused
AND
The State of AP., Rep by its Public Prosecutor. High Court, Hyderabad.
...Respondent/Complainant
Appellant: Sri. Ammaji Nettem
Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)
The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1168 of 2015
Between:
Narkedimilli Srinu <§) Chepala Srinu, S/o. Venkata Raju, Age: 38 years, ■ ■■ APELLANT Akiveedu, West Godavari Dist. AND State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court.
... RESPODENT
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: {Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)
Sole accused in Sessions Case No.106 of 2014 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, West GodavariDistrictat Kowur, is the appellant in the present criminal appeal.Hewastried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. First charge was under Section 302 I.P.C. and the second charge was under Section 380 I.P.C.
KSRJ & BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.ll68of2015 ‘
- Gravamen of the charge is that on 07.12.2012 at about 6.30 p.rn., the accused went to the house of P.W.l and beat the wife of P.W.i by name Matte Nagamani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased^, who is none other than his cousin, with an iron hammer on her head and face, causing her instantaneous death due to severe bleeding crush injuries and thereafter, he has taken away the gold ornaments, viz., four gold bangles and a two-row gold mangalasuthram chain with two suthra/u on the person of the deceased and thereby committed the offences under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C.
- After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 21.09.2015, convicted the accused for both the offences. For the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellanttosuffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of* six months. For the offence under Section 380 I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three yearsandto pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonmentfora
KSR,J & BVLNCJ Crl.A.No.1168 of 2015
further period of three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
- Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: Thedeceased is the wife of P.W.l and they were residing in a rentedhouseat Kowur Town. P.W.2 is the owner of the said house. P.W.3 is the daughter and P.W.4 .is the daughter-in-law of P.W.l and the deceased. The son and daughter of P.W.l and the deceased got married and they were residing separately at different places. P.W;1 is running a rice mill in Kowur. The accused is noneotherthanson of senior paternal uncle of the deceased. There were disputes between the father of the deceased and his two brothers in respect of some landed property. The father of the accused died during the childhood of the accused. Thereafter, the mother oftheaccusedalso died due to cancer and the relatives of the accused did not help him in any way and as such, he developed grudge against his paternal uncles and their children. The accused met with an accident while selling tea in moving trains and spent huge money forhistreatment. He borrowed money from several persons to meet his medical expenses and maintain his family and was in financialcrisis.About two months prior to the date of incident, the accused met his
KSR,J &fiVLNC,J Crl.A.No.ll68of2015
relatives at Tadepalligudem and Kowur and requestedforfinancial help as he wanted to construct a. house. Some of the relatives provided an amount of Rs.2,000/- each and P.W.1 gave only Rs.500/-. As the money given by relatives was not sufficient to meet his financial problems, the accused decided to kill one of wealthy women among his relatives and steel valuables from her. On 07.12.2012 at about 6.30 p.m., the accused went to the house of P.W.l, by carrying an iron hammer with him which was hidden at his back, and found the deceased alone in the house. At that time, there was no power supply in the portion of the deceased. He went inside the house and asked the deceased to give him a glass of water. The deceased went inside the dining hall with the help of charging light and when she was collecting water in a steel glass, the accused beat her on her head with the iron hammer, upon which the deceased fell down. The accused again beat her with the hammer on head and face in an indiscriminate manner,duetowhich she sustained severe bleeding crush injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused took away four gold banglesandatwo-row mangalasuthram c\d\n with suthralu \Norr\ by the deceasedandafter cleaning his face and hands, he left the house along with booty. At
KSR,J & BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.1168 of 2015
about 7.30 p.m., P.W.l received a phone call from his daughterP.W.3, who asked him to go home as the deceased was not responding to her calls. At about 8.15 p.m., P.W.lwenttothehouse and found the doors kept open and lights glowing. Hefoundthe deceased lying dead in pool of blood by the side of dining hall with injury on right side of- head. When P.W.l enquiredthelandlord - P.W.2, he informed that he saw the deceased moving near the gate at about 6.15 p.m. P.W.2 also informed that at about 8.00 p.m., the phone of the deceased was ringing and nobody attendedthecalls and when himself and his wife came down and went inside the house, they found the dead body of the deceased lying on ground. P.W.l also noticed missing of two pairs of gold bangles and gold mangalasuthram chain from the person of the deceased.Onthe same day at about 9.30 p.m., P.W.l lodged Ex.P.l- reportwiththe police. On receipt of Ex.Pl from P.W.l, P.W.IOS.I. of Police, Kowur Town Police Station, registered a case in CrimeIMo.227of 2012 under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. and issued copies of EX.P14- F.I.R. to all concerned. At about 10.00 p.m.,P.W.ll-Circle Inspector of Police, Kowur, having received the informationand copy of F.I.R. from P.W.IO, visited the scene of offence and posted
KSR,J & BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.ll68 of 2015
a guard to preserve the scene of offence as it was night. He also called the dues team and dog squad, who visited the scene of offence on the early morning of 08.12.2012. He recorded the statements of P'.Ws.l and 2 and others. At about 7.00 a.m. on 08.12.2012, he prepared Ex.P3- scene of offence observation report, in the presence of P.W.6 and another. He collected controlled earth> bloodstains and hairs from the fist of the deceased and seized them in the presence of P.W.6 and another. He also got the scene photographed through P.W.8 and prepared rough sketch - EX.P15. He also conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.6 and another, under Ex.P4. At the time of inquest,herecorded statements of witnesses and blood relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for conducting post-mortem examination. P.W.9 - Civil Assistant Surgeon, Kowur, conducted autopsy over the dead body on 08.12.2012 at about 1.30 p.m. and issued EX.P13- post-mortem examination report, opiningthatthe cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure duetoshock due to extra cranial haemorrhage and infra cranial haemorrhage and due to injury to vital parts like brain and meninges, due to hit by heavy blunt object like hammer. On 09.12.2012, P.W.ll, after
KSR,J & BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.1168 of 2015
verifying the crirninal history of the accused andashewasearlier involved in two crimes, deputed a crime party at Akiveedu to apprehend the accused as he is a resident of Akiveedu. On 18.12.2012, on credible information, P.W.ll apprehended the accused at Kotipalli Bus Stand, Rajahmundry, .at about12.00noon. On interrogation, the accused confessed to have committed the offences, in the presence of mediators. P.W.ll recovered two gold bangles (M.Os.l and 2) and a two-row gold mangalasuthram&m</sup> with two suthralu {^.03) from the possession of theaccused.When P.W.ll questioned about the remaining gold ornaments, the accused confessed that he pledged the remaining two gold bangles with a pawn broker at Akiveedu and produced a slip-Ex.P7.The accused led P.W.ll and mediators to the shop of P.W.7,wherehe pledged the gold bangles. P.W.7 informed P.W.ll andmediators that the accused pledged two gold bangles on 08.12.2012foran amount of Rs.35,000/-, and P.W.7 produced those two gold bangles - M.Os.3 and 4, which were seized by P.W.ll in the presence of P.W.6 and another, under a cover of panchanama - Ex.PlO.The pawn ticket - Ex.P9 containing the details with regard to pledging of M.Os.3 and 4 and also the signature of the accused,hasalsobeen
KSR,J & BVLNQJ Crl.A.No.ll68of2015 *
seized by P.W.ll in the presence of mediators. Thereafter,P.W.ll seized the hammer (M.0.8) used by the accused in the commission of offence and bioodstained clothes (M.0.6- jeans pantandM’.0.7- t-shirt) from a building at Akiveedu, at the instance of the accused, under a cover of panchanama. After completion of seizure proceedings, when P.W.ll and mediators were about to leave that place, the accused pushed the police constables away and jumped down from that building, due to which he received fracture to both his legs. Tn that regard, a case in Crime No. 137 of 2012 was registered on the file of Akiveedu Police Station. Thereafter, P.W.ll admitted the accused^ in a private hospital at Bhirnavaram. After providing first aid, the accused was shifted to Government Hospital, Kakinada, for better treatment. On 19.12.2012, testidentification parade was conducted in a function hall at Kowur, for identifying the stolen gold ornaments. P.W.3daughter of the deceased identified the gold ornaments that were belonging tothedeceased. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 - successor of P.W.ll filed charge sheet.
KSR,J & BVLNQJ Crl.A.No.1168 of 2015
- After closure of the prosecution evidence, when theaccused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating material against him. The accused didnotchooseto adduce any oral evidence in defence.
- After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of both the charges and accordingly, recorded the conviction and imposed the sentences againstthe accused as already stated supra, leading to the filing of the present criminal appeal by him.
- Ms. Ammaji Nettem, learned counsel for the appellant. strenuously contends that the prosecution has failedtoestablishthe chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in holdingtheaccused guilty of the offences. She further contends that P.Ws.land3did not give any descriptive particulars of the gold ornamentsbeforethe police and P.W.7 also did not specify the weight of the pledged gold ornaments. It is contended that mere recovery of goldornaments from the possession of the accused cannot be the basis for holding the accused guilty of commission of murder. She furthercontended that the test identification parade of gold ornaments conducted by
10
KSR,J & BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.ll68of2015'
P.W.6 cannot be relied upon as it is not in accordance with Rule 35 Cr.P.G. It is further contended that the evidence of P.W.5 is not trustworthy and he did not inform anyone or police that he witnessed the accused coming out of the house of the deceased. In support of her contentions, learned counsel relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan^,
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam Parasa Koteswararao v. Eede Sree Hari^ Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police"* and State of Bihar v. Naresh Yadav and others® and the judgment of the common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of A.P. and the State of Telangana in Subramanyam @ Gangadharam @ Gangappa and another v. State of A.P.®. Learned counsel prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant.
- On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would support the judgment under appeal and contend that both the ocular and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution dinchingly established ail the circumstances that lead to the only
^ (2011) 11 see 724
^(2013) 12 see 406
^ 2017 (2) ALT (erl.) 27 (Se)
“2018 Lawsuit (Se) 347
^ 2004 (1) ALD (erl.) 766 (Se)
®2016 (3)ALT(eri.) 489 (D.B)
11
KSR,J & BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.ll68 of 2015
conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence, and therefore, no interference is warranted with the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
- We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the entire material available on record. The evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 would disclose that the deceased alone was present in the house on the evening of fateful day and they found her in a pool of blood with injury to head. The evidence of P.W.9 - doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, coupled with EX.P13 - post mortem examination report issued by him, would reveal that crush injury over the face and frontal area of the scalp was found on the dead body and eye balls were crushedandthere was also disfigurement of face, nose and mouth. P.W.9 opined that the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failuredue to shock, due to extra cranial haemorrhage and infra cranial haemorrhage and due to injury to vital parts like brain and meninges, due to hit by heavy blunt object like hammer. Thus, the prosecution could prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal.
12
KSR,J & BVLNQJ , Crl.A.No.ll68of2015
- P.W.l, husband of the deceased, deposed about his noticing missing of two pairs of gold bangles and a two-row gold mangalasuthram chain (M.Os.l to 5) from the person of the deceased, when he saw the dead body after the incident. P.W.3daughter of the deceased deposed that she identified M.Os.l to 5 - four gold bangles and one gold chain of the deceased in the test identification parade in the presence of P.W.6- Village Revenue Officer. P.W.4- daughter-in-law of the deceased also deposed about missing of two pairs of gold bangles and one gold chain,fromthe person of the deceased. P.W.6 - Village Revenue Officer acted as a
13
KSR,J & BVLNQJ Crl.A.No.ll68of2DlS
mediator to the confession panchanama of accused andseizureof M.Os.l, 2 & 5 - two gold bangles and a gold mangalasuthramchain from his possession and also M.Os.3 and 4 - two gold bangles from P.W.7- pawn broker, at the instance of the accused,andhealso conducted test identification parade, in which P.W.3 identified M.Os.l to 5 to be belonging to the deceased. P.W.6 has categorically deposed that the accused, having confessed to havecommittedthe murder of the deceased due to his financial necessities and robbed four gold bangles and one gold mangalasuthram chainfromthe dead body of the deceased, produced two gold bangles (M.Os.l and 2) and a gold chain with two suthrams {\A.O.S) from his pant pocket. which were recovered by P.W.ll- Inspector of Policeunderacover of mediators report. P.W.6 further deposed that the accused confessed that he pledged the other two gold bangleswithP.W.7at Akiveedu S Circle and produced Ex.P7- receipt under which they were pledged, and led him and the police to Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Financiers at Akiveedu S Cirde, where P.W.7, owner of that shop, produced the two bangles (M.Os.3 and 4), which were pledged by the accused for an amount of Rs.35,000/-, by stating that they belong to his wife, and P.W.ll recoveredthesameunder
14
KSR,J & BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.ll68 of 2015
a cover of mediators report. P.W.6 further deposed that P.W.7 produced Ex.P9- pawn ticket with regard to pledgingof M.Os.3 and 4 by the accused. P.W.6 also confirmed that P.W.3 identified M.Os.l to 5 to be beipnging to the deceased. P.W.7 corroborated the version of P.W.6 with regard to his handing over to the police the two gold bangles pledged with him by the accused under Ex.P7 - receipt, when the police, P.W.6 and the accused came to his shop on 18.12.2012, and also his producing Ex.P9 - pawn ticket, which contains Llie signature of the accused. Though it was elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.6 and 7 that Exs.P7 and P9 do not contain the descriptive particulars of the gold bangles pledged, it is to be noted that Ex.P9 - pawn ticket contains the signatureofthe accused. Though the accused, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied to have signed on Ex.P9, the fact remains, during the cross-examination of P.Ws.6, 7 or 11, no such suggestion was put to them, disputing the signature of accused on Ex.P9. If according to the defence, as there were no descriptive particularsin Exs.P7 and P9, it cannot be believed that M.Os.3 and 4 were pledged by the accused with P.W.7, it is for the defence to explainastowhat were the two gold bangles that were pledged under Ex.P9 - pawn ticket.
IS
KSR,J & BVLI\IC,J Crl.A.No.1168 of 2015
the signature on which was not disputed by the accused during the course of evidence of relevant prosecution witnesses. Thus, nonmentioning of descriptive particuiars in Exs.P7 and P9 wouid not be of much relevance. “ Further, the evidence of P.W.ll also corroborates the version of P.Ws.6 and 7 with regard to recovery of M.Os.l, 2 & 5 from the possession of the accused and M.Os.3 & 4 from P.W.7, at the instance of the accused. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established the circumstances with regard to recovery of M.Os.l, 2 & 5 from the possession of accused and M.Os.3 and 4 from P.W.7 at the i instance of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused sought to contend that the test identification parade of gold ornaments conducted by P.W.6- Village Revenue Officer has no credence as he IS not competent to conduct test identification of property as per Rule 35 of the Cr.P.C., and sought to rely on the decision i n Subramanyam @ Gangadharam @ Gangappa and another v. State of A.P., it is to be noted that nothing adverse was found in the evidence of P.Ws.l, 3 and 4 to disbeiieve their version, which corroborated with each other. with regard to their noticing missing
16 KSR,J & BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.ll68of 2015
of four gold bangles and a two-row gold mangaiasuthram chain from the person of the deceased, and the prosecution has successfully two-row gold established that two gold bangles and a mangaiasuthram chain were found in the possession of the accused recovered from P.W.7 at the and another two gold bangles were instance of the accused, immediately after the arrest of theaccused. Rule 35 Cr.P.C. provides for identification parade of properties to be held in the Court of the Magistrate where the properties are lodged, but in the instant case, M.Os i to 5 were not lodged in theCourtof the identification parade was conducted and Magistrate by the time thus, the questionofviolationofRule35Cr.P.C.doesnotarise. of bloodstained clothes of accused 14. So far as the recovery hammer (M.0.8) with which he attacked the (M.Os.6 and 7) and iron of the accused is concerned, the evidence deceased, at the instance of P.W.6 would show that pursuant to his confession, the accused two-storied building led himself, P.W.ll and one Surya Kumari to a of one Rambabu of Akiveedu Village and took out a polythene cover the terrace of the building and the from beneath the water tank on said cover contained a jeans pant and a t-shirt (M.Os.6&7)andan wooden handle (M.0.8), which were seized by iron hammer with
17
KSR,J&BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.1168 of 2015
P.W.ir under Ex.Pllseizure report The evidence ofP.W.6 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.ll on this circumstanceand nothing could be elicited in their cross-examination to doubt the veracity of their evidence with regard to recoveryofM.Os.6to8at the instance of the accused.
- The prosecution also sought to rely on another circumstance. i.e., P.W.5, who was working in the rice mill of P.W.l, witnessing the. accused coming out of the house of the deceased around 7.00 p.m. on the fateful day. P.W.5 deposed that on the fateful day, at about 7.00 p.m., he went to the house of P.W.l to give Tirupathi
18
KSR,J & BVLNQJ Crl.A.No.ll68 of 2015 '
prasadam, on the instructions of another partner of rice mill, and while he was parking his motorcycle outside the house,hewitnessed a person wearing a red colour shirt, coming out of the house of the deceased. He identified the accused to be the said person. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge opined that his evidence was not believable for the reason that his evidence would reveal that at the time he went to the house of the deceased, there was no power supply in the house of the deceased and in the localityandthatin the evidence of PW.11- Investigating Officer, it was elicited that P.W.5 did not state before the police that he can identify the person coming out of the house of P.W.l. Even if the evidence of P.W.5 is discarded, as already held, as the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that some of the gold ornaments, which were found missing from the person of the deceased, were foundin the possession of the accused immediately after his arrest and the remaining ornaments were pledged by the accused on the very next - day of incident, with P.W.7 - pawn broker, under Ex.P9 pawn ticket which contains the signature of the accused,which wasnot disputed by him during the cross-examination of relevant witnesses, and that the crime weapon and bloodstained clothes of the accused
19
KSR,J & BVLNC,J Crl.A.No.ll68of2015
"i
were aiso recovered at his instance from the placewherehe hid them, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecutioncould successfully establish the chain of circumstances, which would point towards the guilt of the accused and unerringly concludethatthe offences were committed by the accused only and none else. A perusal of the decisions relied on by the learned counselforthe appellant would show that they relate to the caseswherethe prosecution could not establish the chain of circumstancesandsince in the instant case, it has been established by theevidenceadduced by the prosecution that the chain of circumstances is complete, leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, we are of the considered opinion that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no avail to the case of the appellant. 17. For the above discussion, this criminal appeal is liabletobe dismissed as devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly. dismissed, by confirming the conviction and sentenceimposedagainst the appellant/accused by the learned IX AdditionalSessionsJudge, West Godavari District at Kovvur, vide judgment dated21.09.2015 in Sessions Case No. 106 of 2014. -
20
KSR,J & BVLNQJ Crl.A.No.1168 of 2015
- As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
I
SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
vna
HIGH COURT
DATED;14/03/2024
ORDER
CRLA.No.1168 of 2015
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused in a murder and theft case based on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the recovery of gold ornaments and weapon at the instance of the accused creates a preponderance of evidence despite lack of eye-witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mustkeem v. State of RajasthanReferred¶54
Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan
Sujit Biswas v. State of AssamReferred¶54
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam
Parasa Koteswararao v. Eede Sree HariReferred¶54
Parasa Koteswararao v. Eede Sree Hari
Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of PoliceReferred¶54
Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police
State of Bihar v. Naresh Yadav and othersReferred¶54
State of Bihar v. Naresh Yadav and others
Subramanyam @ Gangadharam @ Gangappa and another v. State of A.P.Referred¶54
Subramanyam @ Gangadharam @ Gangappa and another v. State of A.P.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Narkedimilli Srinu
The State of A.P.
K Suresh Reddy
B V L N Chakravarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
