Pandugayala Venkata Narasimhulu @ Venkata Narasimham, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pandugayala Venkata Narasimhulu @ Venkata Narasimham, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction and judgment dated 11.01.2022 in Spl.S.C.No.118 of 2017 set aside; appellant/accused acquitted of offences under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989; fine amount, if any paid, to be refunded to the appellant in accordance with law; interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the appeal stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the compromise arrived at between the appellant/accused and the de facto complainant during the pendency of the appeal, the conviction and judgment dated 11.01.2022 in Spl.S.C.No.118 of 2017 should be set aside and the appellant acquitted. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the compromise between the parties, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 were allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded its satisfaction with the identification of the parties and the voluntariness of the compromise arrived at between the appellant/accused and the de facto complainant.

Key takeaways

In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another (2012 (9) Scale 257), the compromise was recorded and the Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 11.01.2022 passed in Spl.S.C.No.118 of 2017.ratio¶29
The conviction and judgment against the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989 were set aside, the appellant/accused was acquitted of the said offences, and any fine amount paid by him was ordered to be refunded in accordance with law.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 11.01.2022 in Spl.S.C.No.118 of 2017 (Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs(PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole) convicting the appellant under Sections 354, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989. During pendency, the parties filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 to permit and record a compromise and to set aside the conviction; the de facto complainant was impleaded as respondent No.2 by order dated 25.11.2025. Both parties appeared, produced Aadhaar cards and were identified by counsel; the de facto complainant categorically stated that she had voluntarily entered into the compromise. Holding the compromise voluntary, and in the light of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, 2012 (9) Scale 257, the Court recorded the compromise, allowed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025, set aside the conviction and judgment, acquitted the appellant, and directed refund of any fine paid. Criminal Appeal allowed.

APHC010024672022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 30/2022

Between:

PANDUGAYALA VENKATA NARASIMHULU @ VENKATA NARASIMHAM,, S/O NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BALIJA BY CASTE, NATIVE OF YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT ST COLONY, PAMURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.

CHEVURI VENKATA RAMANAMMA, W/O. HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. D.NO.4-12, PAMURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 25.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.A.NO.30 OF 2022.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1.KRANTHI KUMAR PASUMARTHI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

2.KOTHA LEELA GANESH RAGHAVENDRA

The Court made the following:

2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.30 OF 2022

J U D G M E N T:

This Criminal Appeal U/s.374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant/Accused to set aside the conviction and judgment dated 11.01.2022 passed in Spl.S.C.No.118 of 2017 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs(PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, for the offence U/secs.354, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989.

Pending appeal, both parties filed I.A.No.02 of 2025 to permit the defacto-complainant to compromise with the accused in the case. Both parties also filed I.A.No.03 of 2025 to record compromise and to set aside the conviction and judgment passed against the appellant/accused.

Heard Sri P.Kranthi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.L.G.Raghavendra, learned counsel representing for the unofficial respondent No.2 (defactocomplainant). Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State is in attendance.

3

Today, when the matter is taken up, the Appellant/accused and the 2^nd respondent herein are present before this Court. The appellant and the 2^nd respondent produced their respective Aadhaar cards in proof of their identity. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent have identified both parties in open Court.

This Court has questioned 2^nd respondent herein/ de facto complainant with regard to compromise, and she categorically stated to that extent that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the appellant/Accused. This Court is satisfied with the identification of the parties and voluntariness in arriving at the compromise. In view of the compromise between the parties, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed, and accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court be set aside.

In the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another¹ , compromise is recorded. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the judgment dated 11.01.2022 passed in Spl.S.C.No.118 of 2017 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs(PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, for the offence U/secs.354, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3(1)(r)(s) and

1 2012 (9) Scale 257

4

3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989, against the

appellant/Accused is set aside, and the appellant/accused is acquitted for the above offence. The fine amount if any paid by the appellant/accused, shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.

As a sequel thereto, the Interlacutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI.

11.03.2026.

PSK

5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

43

Criminal Appeal No:30 of 2022

11.03.2026

W PSK