Partly allowed

Kanuku Sagar, (A-1), v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC25 Jul 2012CRLA/1026/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the lifetime imprisonment and conviction of the first appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC due to deficiencies in prosecution evidence and hostile witnesses. However, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the second appellant for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence of the first appellant under Section 302 IPC were set aside and he was acquitted; the conviction and sentence of the second appellant under Section 323 IPC were confirmed.

Kanuku Sagar, (A-1), Vs the State of Ap Rep… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1026 of 2008

¶3

Judgment: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.)

¶4

This criminal appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed questioning the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants herein, by judgment dated 22.07.2008 passed in S.C. No. 369 of 2003 by the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Khammam, at Kothagudem.

¶5

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 04.09.2000 at about 23.00 hrs, a procession for immersion of Lord Vinayaka idol, was taken in a tractor from Narsapuram village to Godavari river. On the way, accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 stopped the tractor and demanded the band people to beat the drums, so that they can dance. In that connection, they picked up a quarrel with the deceased and P.W.1 and P.Ws.8 to 10 and 14, who were in the procession, intervened and pacified the accused. The accused, therefore, bore grudge against the deceased and P.W.1. Accused No.1 also had grouse against the deceased as he interfered with his affairs and warned him. After immersion of the idol of Lord Vinayaka in Godavari river, while they were returning to the village, at about 23.30 hrs, accused Nos. 1 to 6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks and knife, with common object to do away with the deceased, waylaid P.W.1 and the deceased near the house of P.W.8 and assaulted them. Accused No.2 beat P.W.1 with stick and caused injuries. Accused No.1 hacked the deceased with knife (Thati Mattalu Narike kathi) on his neck and other parts of the

¶6

body and caused severe injures. As a result of the injuries, the deceased collapsed and died on the spot. P.Ws.1 to 7 witnessed the incident. P.Ws.1 to 5 shifted the deceased in an auto belonging to P.W.11 to hospital, but the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the way.

¶7

On 05.09.2000 at about 01.00 hr., P.W.1 lodged a report at Dummagudem Police Station. On receipt of the report, L.W.22-the Sub Inspector of Police, Dummagudem Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 27 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC and issued FIRs to all concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, L.W.22 examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement and then referred him to Government Hospital, Dummagudem, for treatment. Thereafter, P.W.23-Circle Inspector of Police, Bhadrachalam, who was in-charge of Venkatapuram circle, took up investigation of the case from L.W.22. He verified the investigation done by L.W.22, visited the scene of offence, got the dead body of the deceased photographed by P.W.17. He examined P.Ws.2 to 12 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.13 and 14 and sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. He seized the blood stained polyester shirt and lungi of the deceased, drafted the crime details form, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and seized the blood soaked earth and control earth.

¶8

Thereafter, P.W.22-Circle Inspector of Police, Venkatapuram, took up investigation. He arrested accused No.1 on 07.09.2000 at 11.00 hrs., at Narsapuram Bus Stop. On interrogation, accused No.1 confessed to have committed the offence along with accused Nos. 2 to

¶9

6. He recorded the confession statement of accused No.1 and at his instance, recovered the knife used in the commission of the offence from the bushes near the house of one Ravulapalli Nagabushanam, in the presence of mediators, namely P.Ws.15 and 16, under a cover of panchanama. Then he sent accused No.1 to judicial remand. On 12.09.2000 at 11.30 hrs, at Narsapuram Bus Stand, he arrested accused Nos.2 to 6, and on interrogation, they confessed to have participated in the commission of offence. Then, he recorded the confession statement of accused Nos.2 to 6, and at the instance of accused No.2, he recovered the stick used by him in the commission of offence under a cover of panchanama, in the presence of P.Ws.18 and 19. Then he sent accused Nos.2 to 6 to judicial remand. Thereafter, P.W.22 forwarded the material objects seized to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and report. P.W.20-Docotor who treated P.W.1 issued certificate stating that P.W.1 received simple injury. P.W.21-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued post-mortem examination report opining the cause of death of the deceased as shock due to massive haemorrhage due to laceration of neck vessels injury to spinal cord due to sublaxation of cervical spine.

¶10

A counter case in Crime No. 28 of 2000, at the instance of accused No.1, was registered against the deceased and others for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶11

After completing the investigation, P.W.22 filed charge sheet stating that the investigation conducted by him established that on 04.09.2000 at 23.30 hrs, at Narsapuram village, accused Nos. 1 to 6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, knife and sticks, assaulted P.W.1 with stick and hacked the

¶12

deceased with knife and caused his death. Therefore, the accused are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 324 read with 149 IPC.

¶13

The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 324 read with 149 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶14

The prosecution, to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 23 and marked Exs.P1 to P49. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the accused.

¶15

The learned Sessions Judge, having appreciated the evidence on record, found the 1^st appellant-A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and the 2^nd appellant-A2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. He held A1 and A2 not guilty of the other charges framed and A3 to A6 not guilty of all the charges framed against them, and acquitted them of the said charges. Accordingly, he convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶16

Questioning the conviction and sentence imposed against them, the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed the present appeal.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and perused the judgment under appeal and other material available on record.

¶18

Now the point that arises for consideration in this criminal appeal

¶19

is whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against accused No.1 and charge under Section 323 I.P.C. against accused No.2, beyond all reasonable doubt? P.W.1 is the injured. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.1. P.W.5 is the sister of the deceased and P.W.1 and wife of P.W.4. P.Ws.6 to 10 are the villagers who were said to have participated in the procession. P.W.11 is the auto driver, in whose auto the deceased was said to have taken to hospital after the incident. P.W.12 is the scribe of Ex.P1-report. P.Ws.13 and 14 are the mediators for crime detail form and inquest panchanama. P.Ws.15 and 16 are panch witnesses to the arrest and confession of accused No.1 and seizure of knife at his instance. P.W.17 is the photographer, who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws.18 and 19 are panch witnesses to the arrest and confession of accused Nos. 2 to 6 and seizure of stick at the instance of accused No.2. P.W.20 is the Doctor who treated P.W.1 for the injuries and issued wound certificate. P.W.21 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report. P.Ws.22 and 23 are the Investigating Officers.

¶20

P.Ws.4 to 8 who are said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident and P.Ws.9 and 11, who are circumstantial witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution, and therefore, they were treated as hostile witnesses. P.W.12, the scribe of Ex.P1-report also turned hostile. P.Ws.13 and 14, who are mediators to the scene of offence panchanama and inquest report, also turned hostile. P.Ws.15 and 16, who are mediators to the arrest and confession of accused No.1 and recovery of knife at his instance, turned hostile. Likewise, P.Ws.18 and 19, who are mediators to the arrest and confession of accused

¶21

Nos. 2 to 6 and recovery of stick at the instance of accused No.2 also turned hostile. Therefore, the only evidence that remains to be examined is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 17 and 20 to 23.

¶22

The fact that the death of the deceased is homicidal, is evident from the evidence of P.W.17-photographer, who took the photographs of the deceased, and the evidence of P.W.21-Doctor, who, on receipt of requisition from P.W.23, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem examination report. According to P.W.21, the cause of death of the deceased, to the best of his knowledge is due to massive haemorrhage caused by laceration of neck vessels and injury to the spinal cord due to sub-laxation of cervical spine. From this evidence of P.Ws.17 and 21, we hold that the prosecution could prove that the death of the deceased is homicidal. But, who caused the death of the deceased, has to be examined.

¶23

P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. He stated that he knows accused Nos.1 to 6 and they are his relatives. That on the day of incident, himself and some others were beating drums in the procession being taken to river Godavari for immersion of the idol of Lord Vinayaka. By the time, the procession reached river Godavari, it was 11.00 in the night. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 6 asked him and other drum beaters, to beat the drums so that they will dance. When they refused to beat the drums as their energy exhausted, accused Nos. 1 to 6 picked up a quarrel with them, and then left to the village. After immersing the idol of Lord Vinayaka in river Godavari, himself, P.Ws.6, 7, 9, 10 and the deceased, returned to the village and on their reaching the house of P.W.8, accused Nos. 1 to 6, who were waiting for them holding sticks and knives in their hands, waylaid them. That accused No.2 beat him on his left eyebrow with a stick, while accused No.1 beat the deceased on the back of his neck with a knife, and then

¶24

the deceased fell down on the ground. At that time, the auto belonging to P.W.11 was coming and they hired the same for shifting the deceased to the hospital at Bhadrachalam, and on the way to hospital, the deceased died in the auto. Then, they took the dead body of the deceased to the house and after removing it from the auto, laid it in front of the house. P.W.12 scribed Ex.P1-report and he put his thumb impression, and thereafter, he went to Dummugudem Police Station and gave the report.

¶25

In his cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he was in intoxicated condition at the time of his giving evidence, but again stated that he was not in intoxicated condition. He admitted that all the persons who participated in the procession of immersion of Lord Vinayaka were in intoxicated condition. He also admitted that that accused No.6, namely Kanuku Seetharatnam, was not present along with A1 to A5 at the bank of river Godavari and that he told the police that six persons asked them to beat the drums. He further admitted that as it was dark night, they used petromax light in the procession, and the tractor lights which were glowing, helped them lead the procession. That no women folk of their village came along with the procession to the bank of river Godavari. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was a drunkard and quarrelsome person and that accused Nos. 1 to 6 did not come to the bank of river Godavari and demanded them to beat the drums. He further denied the suggestion that because the deceased quarreled with several persons, somebody beat the deceased, and as a result of which he died.

¶26

P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. She stated that P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and that she knows accused Nos. 1 to 6. She deposed about the taking of the procession of Lord Vinayaka for immersion in river Godavari and about accused Nos. 1 to 6 demanding

¶27

the deceased, P.W.1 and others to beat the drums, and the quarrel that took place when they refused to beat. She further stated that when accused Nos.1 to 6, P.W.1 and the deceased were quarrelling, other persons interfered and separated them. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 6 returned to the village and waited for the arrival of the deceased and P.W.1, and while P.W.1, the deceased and others were returning to the village after immersing the idol of Lord Vinayaka in river Godavari, and on their reaching the house of P.W.8, accused Nos.1 to 6 waylaid P.W.1 and the deceased with sticks and knives in their hands, and accused No.2 beat on the left eye brow of P.W.1. Then the deceased told P.W.1 that they were only two in number, while the accused are more in number, and therefore, not to quarrel with the accused and instead to give report to the police. Then, the deceased, P.W.1 and his wife namely P.W.3 went to the house of one Ranga Babu. The accused also beat the deceased by throwing in thorny bushes. By the time they went to the house of Ranga Babu, he and his family members were sleeping, and on their knocking the door, Ranga Babu opened the doors, came out and when they narrated the incident to him, he told them not to go to the police station at that time as it was late in the night and advised them to go to the police station on the next day morning by taking the first bus. Then when they were returning to their house, the deceased was unable to walk due to the injuries sustained on his body. Accused No.1 beat the deceased on his chest with a stone severely. On the day of incident, the accused formed themselves into groups and beat the deceased two to three times and that she witnessed the beating. That when they were returning to their house from the house of Ranga Babu, accused No.1 came all of a sudden with a knife and beat on the back side of the neck of the deceased, and on seeing the attack, she shouted “vammo”. The

¶28

neck of the deceased was cut to some extent and he fell on the ground. After hacking the deceased, accused No.1 went to the house of accused No.5. The doors of the house of accused No.5 were closed from inside, and they also went to the house of accused No.5 and shouted to open the doors, but the doors were not opened. Accused No.1 was inside the house of accused No.5 holding a knife in his hand and when they saw him from the window, he was trembling. Then, they went to the house of one Ramulu and took his auto to shift the deceased to hospital at Bhadrachalam, and while they were shifting the deceased in the auto, on the way to the hospital on the outskirts of their village, the deceased died.

¶29

In her cross-examination, P.W.2 denied that she omitted to say to the police that the deceased, P.W.1, P.W.3 and herself went to the house of Ranga Babu and narrated the incident to him and Ranga babu told them not to go to the police station at that time as it was late in the night and advised them to go to the police station next day morning by catching the first bus and that the accused formed themselves into groups and beat the deceased two to three times and accused No.1 beat the deceased on his chest with a stone severely, and while they were returning to their house from the house of Ranga Babu, accused No.1 all of a sudden came with a knife and hacked on the back side of the neck of the deceased as a result of which part of the neck of the deceased was cut. She also denied that she omitted to state before the police that accused No.1, after hacking on the back side of neck of the deceased, went into the house of accused No.5 and the doors of accused No.5 were closed from inside and when they saw through the window, accused No.1 was trembling holding a knife in his hand. She further denied that she omitted to state to the police that accused beat the deceased by throwing him in thorny bushes. She

¶30

stated that she was walking behind the deceased at a feet distance, P.W.3 was walking behind her at two feet distance and P.W.1 was walking behind P.W.3 at a distance of two to three feet. That P.W.5, who is her sister-in-law, and her husband, namely P.W.4, were walking behind P.W.1. She admitted that on the date of incident, two to three times, quarrel took place between accused Nos. 1 to 6 and the deceased and P.W.1, and all the men folk of the village consumed liquor on that day. She denied the suggestion that the deceased was a drunkard, but admitted that womenfolk of the village, including herself, did not go to the bank of river Godavari, for immersion of idol of Lord Ganesh.

¶31

P.W.3, who is the wife of P.W.1, deposed about the procession that was taken for immersion of idol of Lord Vinayaka to the river Godavari. She stated that after immersion of the idol of Lord Vinayaka, P.W.1 and the deceased returned to the village. In the meanwhile, accused No.6, who is the mother of accused No.1, came to their houses and stated that accused No.1 was beaten and somebody from either side would be killed on that day. When the deceased and P.W.1 were returning to the village after immersion of Lord Ganesh, accused No.2 beat P.W.1 on his left eyebrow with a stick. Later, accused No.1 hacked on the back side of the neck of the deceased with a knife, and at that time, accused No.2 to 6 were also present at the scene of offence. Accused No.1 after hacking on the back side of the neck of the deceased went into the house of accused No.5. When they were taking the deceased in their hands towards the road, they saw an auto belonging to P.W.11 coming. Then, they shifted the deceased into the auto, and while on the way to the hospital, on the outskirts of their village, the deceased died.

¶32

In her cross-examination, P.W.3 denied that she omitted to state

¶33

to the police that accused No.6 came to their house and uttered the words that accused No.1 was beaten and somebody from either side would be killed on that day. When accused beat P.W.1, he came to the house as it was nearby and drank water. She further stated that the deceased was hacked by accused No.1 at the house of P.W.8.

¶34

Even though P.Ws.2 and 3 denied to have made any omissions in the statement given by them to the police, as noted above, the fact remains, P.W.23, who was in-charge Circle Inspector of Police at the time of incident and who conducted investigation of the case before handing over it to P.W.22, in his cross-examination, admitted that P.W.1 omitted to mention in his statement before L.W.22-Sub Inspector of Police, the names of accused Nos.2 and 6, who also along with other accused insisted them to beat drums, and they expressing their inability to beat the drums again as their energy was exhausted. He also admitted that P.W.2 omitted to state in his statement that accused Nos. 1 to 6 returned back to the village from river Godavari, that accused Nos.1 to 6 quarreled with the deceased and P.W.1, that accused Nos. 1 to 6 returned to the village in advance and waited for the arrival of the deceased, and that the deceased told P.W.1 that they were only two in number while the accused are more in number, and therefore, not to quarrel with the accused and to give report to the police. He further admitted that P.W. 2 omitted to state in her statement that the deceased, P.W.1, P.W.3 and herself went to the house of Ranga Babu, that the accused also beat the deceased by the throwing him thorny bushes, and Ranga Babu and his family members were sleeping when they knocked their door and Ranga Babu opened the door, came out and told them not to got to police station at that time as it was late in the night and advised them to go to the police station next day morning. He also admitted that P.W.2 omitted to state in her

¶35

statement that accused No.1 beat on the chest of the deceased with a stone severely and that the accused formed themselves into groups and beat the deceased two to three times and she saw the said beating. He also admitted that P.W.2 omitted to state in her statement that when they were returning to their house from the house of Ranga Babu, accused No.1 hacked the deceased on the neck from behind, and that after hacking the neck of the deceased, accused No.1 went to the house of accused No.5 and as the doors of accused No.5 were closed from inside, they shouted to open the doors, but the doors were not opened, and that accused No.1 was inside the house holding the knife in his hand and that when they saw through the window, accused No.1 was trembling. He admitted that transport frequency was available from Dummugudem to Bhadrachalam during day time, and that Narsapuram village is situated on the main road and the incident also took near the main road. He further admitted that P.W.3 omitted to state in her statement that accused Nos. 2 and 6 along with other accused insisted to beat the drums.

¶36

In view of these admissions made by P.W.23-Investigating Officer, it becomes clear that the statements which were not made by P.Ws.2 and 3 before L.W.22 and which they denied to have not been omitted, are nothing but improvements. By denying the omissions, they tried to depose something, which P.W.1, who was injured in the incident, did not depose, and improve the case. This apart, P.Ws.2 and 3 being the wife of the deceased and wife of P.W.3 respectively are interested witnesses. Though they stated that they saw accused No.1 hacking the deceased on the back side of neck and accused No.2 beating P.W.1 with a stick on the left eye-brow, the fact remains, P.W.1 in his evidence admitted that no womenfolk of their village participated in the procession taken to immerse the idol of Lord

¶37

Vinayaka in the river Godavari. In view of this admission of P.W.1, the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 at the time of incident and their witnessing the hacking of the deceased by accused No.1, becomes highly doubtful, and as such, their evidence cannot be relied upon. This apart, the prosecution also failed to prove the arrest of accused No.1 by P.W.22, his confession of the commission of the crime and recovery of knife at his instance. Even though P.W.22 in his evidence stated that on 07.09.2000, on reliable information, he along with Sub Inspector Police and other staff arrested accused No.1 at Narsapuram Bus Stand in the presence of P.Ws.15 and 16, and on interrogation of accused No.1 in their presence, he confessed and admitted his guilt that he along with five other accused committed the offence, and at his instance, he recovered bloodstained knife from the bushes beside the road near the house of Ravulapalli Nagabushanam, under a cover of panchanama, the fact remains, P.Ws.15 and 16 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The prosecution having failed to prove the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 at the time of incident and their witnessing accused No.1 hacking the deceased on the back side of neck from behind, and the arrest of accused No.1 and his confessing the commission of the crime and recovery of the knife at his instance, beyond all reasonable doubt, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence of accused No.1 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶38

So far as the charge under Section 323 I.P.C. against accused No.2 is concerned, P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he was beaten by accused No.2 with a stick on the left eye-brow. P.Ws.2 and 3 supported this version of P.W.1 that he was beaten by accused No.2 with a stick on his left eye-brow, but since the presence of P.Ws.2 and

¶39

3 at the time of incident was found to be highly doubtful, their evidence cannot be relied upon. Though the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be relied upon and though the prosecution failed to prove the arrest of accused Nos.2 to 6 made by P.W.22 and their confession of committing the crime and recovery of the stick at the instance of accused No.2, for the reason that P.Ws.18 and 19, who stood as mediators to the arrest of accursed Nos.2 to 6, confession and recovery of stick, turned hostile, the fact remains, P.W.1 who is an injured witness and victim, specifically stated that accused No.2 beat him with a stick on the left eye-brow. This part of the evidence of P.W.1 stands corroborated by the evidence of P.W.20-Medical Officer, who at the instance of police, having examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P39wound certificate, deposed that on examining P.W.1, he found laceration injury of 2 x ½ cm on left eyebrow – blunt in nature and the same is a simple injury. Even though P.W.20 admitted that the said injury is possible if a person falls on hard surface, but considering the evidence of P.W.1, who was injured in the incident, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.2 had voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 by beating him with a stick on the left eye-brow. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution could prove the charge under Section 323 I.P.C. against accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶40

In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the 1^st appellant-A1, by judgment dated 22.07.2008 passed in S.C. No. 369 of 2003 by the V Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Khammam, at Kothagudem, for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C., is hereby set aside. The 1^st appellant-A1 is acquitted for the said charge and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case,

¶41

and the fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him. The conviction and sentence imposed against the 2^nd appellant-A2 for the charge under Section 323 I.P.C. is hereby confirmed.

¶42

__________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶43

______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶44

25^th July, 2012 IBL

Kanuku Sagar, (A-1), v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanuku Sagar, (A-1), v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandragiri Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of A.P.

Shaik Saibee Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Peram Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sujatha Sahukar, W/o. Suresh Kumar Sahukar Vs The Government of A.P.

Dasari Simhachalam, (A1) Vs The State of A.P.

Alla Ramu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by