Partly allowed

Dubba Omkar Reddy v. the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026CRLRC/2114/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal revision petitions challenging concurrent convictions under Section 397 IPC for dacoity with deadly weapon, but reduced the substantive sentence from seven years to three years rigorous imprisonment considering the 23-year pendency. The fine of Rs. 1,000 each was upheld. The court held that no illegality or impropriety existed in the lower courts' findings, and directed the petitioners to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence reduced from seven years to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 397 IPC; fine of Rs.1,000 each upheld; detention set off under Section 428 CrPC; petitioners to surrender within four weeks.

Dubba Omkar Reddy Vs the State of A.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010032032009

¶2

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

¶3

[3560]

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2096/2009

¶8

Between:

¶9

KATA KONDA BABJI & 2 OTHERS, S/O RAMANAIAH, D.NO.4-126, TRUNK ROAD, NELLORE TOWN & DIST.

¶10

PILLELLA SRINIVASULU NAIDU,, S/O P.SESHAIAH, D.NO.148, SANTHAPETA, NELLORE TOWN & DIST.

¶11

HASTI BALAJI, S/O CHENGAIAH, MEDA BAKKAM VILLAGE, NINDRA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST.

¶12

...PETITIONERS/A.2, A.3 & A.8

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC 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 Judgment dated 02.12.09 in Crl.A.No.15/2008 on the file of the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Tirupati and in the Judgment of S.C.No.181/2006, dated 29.01.08 on the file of the Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Tirupati of Chittoor Dist.

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2946 OF 2009

¶18

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 petitioners on bail by suspending the execution of sentence passed in the Judgment in Crl.A.No.15/2008, dated 02.12.09 on the file of the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Tirupati and in confirming the Judgment made in S.C.No.181/2006, dated 29.01.08 on the file of the Prl.

¶19

-2-

¶20

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶21

Asst. Sessions Judge, Tirupati of Chittoor Dist., pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2114/2009

¶23

Between:

¶24

DUBBA OMKAR REDDY, S/O D.RAMI REDDY, D.NO.4-5-119/1, GIRIPURAM, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST.

¶25

...PETITIONER /A.5

¶26

AND

¶27

THE STATE OF A P, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶28

...RESPONDENT

¶29

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC 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 Judgment dated 02.12.09 in Crl.A.No.16/2008 on the file of the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Tirupati and in the Judgment S.C.No.181/2006, dated 29.01.08 on the file of the Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Tirupati of Chittoor Dist., and acquit them in the interest of justice.

¶30

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2973 OF 2009

¶31

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 petitioners on bail by suspending the execution of sentence passed in Crl.A.No.16/2008, dated 02.12.09 on the file of the III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Tirupati in confirming the Judgment made in S.C.No.181/2006, dated 29.01.08 on the file of the Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Tirupati of Chittoor Dist., pending disposal of the Crl.R.C., in the interest of justice.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners:

¶33

1.Sri .J.UGRANARASIMHA

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶35

Sri Panini Somayaji,

¶36

Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶37

-3-

¶38

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶39

The Court made the following common order:

¶40

Instant criminal revision cases are filed against the common judgment dated 02.12.2009 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ appellate court’ ) in Criminal Appeal Nos.15 and 16 of 2008 confirming the judgment, dated 29.01.2008, passed in Sessions Case No.181 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupati, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ trial court’ ).

¶41

Initially, a case in Crime No.310 of 2003 was registered by the Central Crime Station, Tirupati against accused 1 to 9, police filed charge sheet before learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, for the offences punishable under Sections 397 read with section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘ I.P.C.’ ) , which was taken on file by learned Magistrate and numbered it as P.R.C. No.26 of 2004 and the same was committed to the court of Sessions.

¶42

Pending the session case, the case against A.4, A.6, A.7 and A.9 was split up; trial of the case continued against A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5, A.8; trial court convicted them for the offences punishable under Section 397 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the same, A.2, A.3, and

¶43

-4-

¶44

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶45

A.8 have filed criminal appeal No.15 of 2008 and A.1 and A.5 have filed separate criminal appeal No.16 of 2008 before learned appellate court. Pending the appeal, as A.1 reported dead, the case against A.1 was abated and passed a common judgment confirming the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court. Hence, these criminal revisions are filed.

¶46

4. PROSECUTION CASE, IN BRIEF, AS FOLLOWS:

¶47

4.1. A.1 to A.9 were close associates and were committing property offences in Tirupati and other places. A.1 was doing business of fake notes business and engaged A.2 to A.9 to induce persons to purchase imported gold from him at a lesser price, with an intention to rob money from intending purchasers.

¶48

4.2. As per the plan of A.1, on 05.07.2003, A.2 and A.3 approached P.W.2 and informed him that A.1, A.4, A.7 and A.8 had brought gold from foreign countries and were selling the same at a lesser price at Tirupati. They requested P.W.2 to arrange a party for purchasing foreign gold in less price. Believing their version, P.W.2 and his relative P.W.3 approached P.W.1 on 06.07.2003 and informed her about the proposal of A.2 and A.3. P.W.1 agreed to purchase the gold and informed them that she would proceed to Tirupati on 08.07.2003. P.W.2 informed the same to A.2 and A.3, whereupon A.2 and A.3 contacted A.1 and

¶49

-5-

¶50

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶51

informed P.W.2 to bring cash to Kapilatheerdham-Alipiri by-pass road, Tirupati.

¶52

4.3. On 08.07.2003, P.W.1 withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from her S.B. account with the State Bank of India, Nellore and collected Rs.10,000/- from her house and proceeded from Nellore to Tirupati in her Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 03 K 0380 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- in a bag (M.O.1). At about 5.00 P.M., the Tata Sumo reached the Alipiri by-pass road and after crossing Kapilatheertham, near Divyarama Nursery, P.Ws.2 and 3 found A.1 to A.6 and A.9 at the platform and the Sumo was stopped. A.2 and A.3 came to the vehicle and asked P.W.1 to show the cash. P.W.1 showed M.O.1 containing cash of Rs.1,50,000/-. A.2 and A.3 introduced A.1 to P.W.1 and stated that A.1 is the person who is selling the foreign gold. P.W.1 asked A.1 to show the gold, then A.1 requested P.W.1 to give the cash and get the gold. But P.W.1 did not agree to pay cash and asked them to show the gold first. In the meanwhile, A.8 wearing a police constable uniform and A.7 wearing safari dress came there on a Hero Honda motorcycle, pretending to be police officers. They questioned P.W.1 and demanded her to give the cash bag and follow them to the police station on the pretext that she was involved in smuggling. P.W.1 suspected A.7 and A.8 and asked them in which police station they were working and expressed her intention to meet higher police officials. As

¶53

-6-

¶54

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶55

P.W.1 did not give the cash bag, A.1 to A.5 took out knives (M.O.3) and threatened on the point of knives and snatched away bag (M.O.1) containing cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and escaped along with A.8 on the Hero Honda motorcycle and the other accused threatened P.Ws.1 to 3 and ran away towards the forest.

¶56

4.4. Thereafter, on the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by P.W.1, the Police, Central Crime Station registered a case in Crime No.310 of 2003 under Section 395 of I.P.C. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police, along with staff and mediators, proceeded to the house of A.1 at Giripuram, Tirupati town, where they found all accused persons. On seeing the police, A.1 to A.9 attempted to escape, but they were surrounded and detained in front of the house of A.1. A.1 was identified as an old offender. When questioned about the offence, the accused did not give proper reply. On suspicion and search, the Inspector of Police found Rs.1,00,000/- and one pen knife with A.1, Rs.10,000/- and one knife with A.2, Rs.10,000/- and one knife with A.3; Rs.5,000/- and one knife with A.4; Rs.5,000/- and one knife with A.5; Rs.5,000/- with A.6; Rs.5,000/- with A.7; Rs.5,000/- with A.8; and Rs.5,000/- with A.9. The police also found a bag containing a khaki uniform shirt, black police belt and blue coloured police caps and blue coloured cash bag, i.e., M.O.1 bearing the inscription “Tirumala Jewellers” in the house of A.1. Thereafter they were apprehended and

¶57

-7-

¶58

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶59

taken into custody. During the course of investigation, A.1 to A.9 revealed their identity and confessed the commission of the offence in the presence of P.W.5 and others. Thereafter they were sent to judicial custody on 09.07.2003.

¶60

4.5. On 19.07.2003, P.Ws.1 to 3 and L.W.4 identified the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, at the sub-jail premises, Chittoor. After completion of investigation, the prosecution has filed charge sheet against all the accused persons. During trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and also marked M.Os.1 to 6, i.e., cash bag, cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, five knives, khaki shirt, police cap and police belt.

¶61

4.6. Learned trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, convicted A.1 to A.3, A.5 and A.8 for the offence punishable under Section 397 of I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. A.8 was found not guilty for the offence under Section 419 of I.P.C.

¶62

4.7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A.2, A.3 and A.8 have preferred appeal vide criminal appeal No.15 of 2008 and A.5 has preferred appeal vide criminal appeal No.16 of 2008 before learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Vide common judgment, dated 02.12.2009, learned appellate court dismissed the criminal appeals and confirmed the

¶63

-8-

¶64

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶65

conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial court. Hence, these criminal revision cases.

¶66

5. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

¶67

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset submits that the entire case was foisted against the present petitioners. After completion of trial, during examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have denied the materials appeared before them through the prosecution witnesses and has particularly stated before the court in respect of real facts.

¶68

5.2. Learned counsel further submits that learned trial court has noted the statements of present petitioners as A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.8 made during their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶69

5.3. It was stated by A.2 that he is a native of Buchireddypalem, Nellore District and is a rice agent. He came to Tirupati along with his family and took beds on rent at the RTC bus stand. When he was standing there along with his younger son, two constables took him in a jeep to the police station stating that the Circle Inspector was calling him and, thereafter the present case was falsely foisted against him.

¶70

5.4. A.3 stated that he is a native of Rebala, Nellore District and was marketing products relating to health. According to him, on the relevant day he came to Tirupati to meet his friend and while he was waiting, a police mobile vehicle came there. The police enquired with him, asked

¶71

-9-

¶72

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶73

him to board the jeep and took him to the police station stating that the Circle Inspector of Police wanted to enquire into the matter. He further stated that he was also falsely implicated as accused in this case.

¶74

5.5. It is statement of A.8 that he was a master cook working in a canteen near Group Theaters, Tirupati. He further stated that his duty used to end at about 12 mid night or 1.00 a.m. every day. On that particular day, after completion of his duty, the police took him to the police station and stated that he would look like a police officer, made him to wear a police uniform, took photographs and falsely implicated him along with the other accused.

¶75

5.6. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the prosecution cannot be believed at all. P.W.5, who is the panchayatdar/ seizure witness in whose presence the alleged seizure was effected, is a stock witness and, therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. It is further submitted that the alleged seizure has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He also submits that identification of the present petitioners is also doubtful.

¶76

5.7. It is the positive contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the petitioners with regard to their involvement in the alleged crime. Thus, learned counsel submits that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of doubt and may be acquitted.

¶77

-10-

¶78

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶79

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR APPEARING FOR THE STATE:

¶80

6.1. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that learned trial court as well as learned appellate court has specifically gone through the evidence on record and considered the entire evidence in its perspective. He further submits that P.Ws.1 to 3 have identified all the accused persons before learned Judicial Magistrate. At this juncture, there is no merit to entertain these revisions and therefore, the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶81

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the observations of learned trial court and learned appellate court.

¶82

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT:

¶83

8.1. The case against A.4, A.6, A.7 and A.9 was split up. During the pendency of the sessions case, A.1 was reported dead. A charge under Section 397 of I.P.C. was framed against A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.8. A charge under Section 419 of I.P.C. was also framed against A.8, as he had allegedly impersonated himself as a police officer by wearing police uniform.

¶84

8.2. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the relatives of de facto complainant, P.W.4 is the Judicial Officer who conducted the test identification parade, P.W.5 is the seizure witness, P.W.6 is the police constable and P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer in the case.

¶85

-11-

¶86

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶87

8.3. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1, de facto complainant, on the instigation of the other accused that gold could be purchased at a lower price, along with P.Ws.2 and 3, reached the spot in a Tata Sumo vehicle carrying cash of Rs.1,50,000/-. At that time, the accused persons, acting jointly, committed the alleged offence. The matter was promptly reported to the police on the same day and, therefore, there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R.

¶88

8.4. It is further case of the prosecution that, on the same day, all the accused persons were arrested. On receipt of credible information, the police proceeded to the house of A.1 at Tirupati, where they found all the accused persons present. They were arrested and seizures were effected from their possession, pursuant to which huge amount of money and other articles were recovered. After their arrest, they were produced before learned Magistrate.

¶89

8.5. The next part of the investigation is in respect of the identification of the accused persons which was conducted in presence of P.W.4, who is a Judicial Officer and the test identification parade was conducted inside the jail premises, wherein P.Ws.1 to 3 identified the accused persons.

¶90

8.6. After conclusion of trial, the present petitioners being A.2, A.3 and A.8 stated that they were not involved in the alleged offence and that they had been falsely implicated by the police. Except stating about their

¶91

-12-

¶92

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶93

residence, avocations and presence at Tirupati, no other defence evidence was adduced on their behalf.

¶94

8.7. On a thorough consideration of the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.5, it appears that the seizures were duly effected. P.W.5, who is a panchayatdar, was subjected to detailed crossexamination by the defence. However, the credibility of P.W.5 was not shaken. Though it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners, I find no material on record to substantiate such submission. This Court, while exercising its limited revisional jurisdiction in criminal cases, is not required to re-appreciate the evidence as if exercising appellate jurisdiction, particularly when there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by learned trial court and learned appellate court. At this juncture, I find no illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court and confirmed by learned appellate court appears to be justified. However, considering the fact that the present criminal cases have been pending since 2003 and that more than 23 years have elapsed since the occurrence, this Court is of the considered view that the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioners requires modification. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the

¶95

-13-

¶96

CRL.R.C. No.2096 & 2114 of 2009

¶97

petitioners for the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon each petitioner shall remain unaltered.

¶98

8.8. The period of detention already undergone by the petitioners during the investigation, inquiry and trial of these cases shall be set off against substantive sentence in accordance with Section 428 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 468 of B.N.S.S.

¶99

8.9. But for the above modification of sentence, these criminal revision cases, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. The orders suspending the sentence during the pendency of the criminal revision cases shall stand vacated.

¶100

8.10. The petitioners are directed to surrender before learned trial court or concerned jail authorities within four weeks from the date of passing of this order to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence, if any. Failing which, learned trial court shall take necessary steps including issuance of non-bailable warrant for securing the presence of the petitioners and for compliance with the order.

¶101

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revisions shall stand closed.

¶102

____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶103

Dt.17.09.2026 BV

Dubba Omkar Reddy v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dubba Omkar Reddy v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases