Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 642 (AP)

Pitcholla Sanjanna v. State of A. P.

2023-03-27

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) is filed by the appellant, who was the accused in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2007, on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur (for short ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’) challenging the judgment, dated 26.07.2010, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304(Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) as against original charge under Section 302 IPC, and accordingly after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. Sessions Case No. 129 of 2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, arose out of committal order in PRC No. 7 of 2007 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur (for short ‘the learned Magistrate’) relating to Crime No. 20 of 2007 of Proddatur I Town Police Station. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet, filed by the Police pertaining to above Crime, is as follows: LW-1 - de-facto complainant - A. Balanagamma, is resident of Vasanthapet street of Praddatur town. Anugonda Brahma Narayana @ Brahmaiah is the deceased (for short ‘the deceased’). Anugonda Balanagamma is the wife of the deceased and witness to the occurrence. Originally, LW-1 and the deceased belonged to Mittamanupalli of Mydukur Mandal. Accused married the sister of the deceased i.e. Obulamma about seven years ago. After that both LW-1 and the deceased shifted to Proddatur Town and they were residing at Door No. 25/678 of Vasanthapet Street. Deceased was working as a compounder in Dr. Vara Lakshmi’s Hospital. LW-2 - Anugonda Nadipi Obanna and LW-3 - Anugonda Chinnakka are residents in the same street. Accused and his wife are also residing in the same street adjacent to the house of LWs. 2 and 3. Deceased was working as a compounder in Dr. Vara Lakshmi’s Hospital. LW-2 - Anugonda Nadipi Obanna and LW-3 - Anugonda Chinnakka are residents in the same street. Accused and his wife are also residing in the same street adjacent to the house of LWs. 2 and 3. Accused is living by dhobi work and he is also a butcher. Six months prior to the incident, accused was addicted to consume alcohol and used to beat his wife Obulamma demanding money from LWs. 2 and 3. Accused used to send his wife to the house of LWs. 2 and 3 to get money. LW-2 used to give some money to Obulamma, who is the wife of the accused. While so, on 18.02.2007, due to Sivarathri festival at about 05:00 p.m. accused came to the house of the deceased and demanded money for taking alcohol. LW-1 and the deceased tried to convince the accused saying that how many days they will fulfill his demand and that they have no money. Accused left the house threatening the deceased that he would come again and if he does pay the amount, he will kill the deceased. On 18.02.2007 at 09:00 p.m. while LW-1 and the deceased were sitting in front of their house, the accused came to the house of the deceased with an intention to kill him and questioned the deceased for not providing money and informed him that he would kill him and picked up quarrel with them. When LW-1 questioned the accused as to why he would kill the deceased, accused pushed her aside and took the dagger from his waist and stabbed over the right side of the chest i.e. below the right arm pit (right side ribs) and caused severe bleeding injury to the deceased. The deceased raised hue and cry as ‘amma’. LW-1 also raised cries as accused is killing her husband. LW-2 N. Obanna, LW-3 N. Chinnakka, LW-4 D. Gurrappa and LW-5 N. Gangulaiah came there and witnessed the occurrence. Accused ran way from the scene of offence along with the dagger, used for commission of the offence. They shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Proddatur in Auto for treatment. While undergoing treatment on 18.02.2007, the deceased died at 10:30 p.m. at Government Hospital, Proddatur. Accused ran way from the scene of offence along with the dagger, used for commission of the offence. They shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Proddatur in Auto for treatment. While undergoing treatment on 18.02.2007, the deceased died at 10:30 p.m. at Government Hospital, Proddatur. On receiving the hospital intimation, ASI, Proddatur I Town PS - K. Ganganna, went to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement from LW-1. Basing on the statement of LW-1, ASI registered the FIR under Section 302 IPC and took up investigation. Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report that the deceased appears to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to injury to right lower of liver. LW-17, the Inspector of Police, Proddatur I Town, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. On 21.02.2007, on receipt of credible information, the Investigating Officer proceeded to Munnaiah Swamy Temple at 04:10 p.m. and arrested the accused under the cover of panchanama in the presence of the panchayatdars and accused led the Police party at 05:00 p.m. to the house where he is residing and produced one dagger which was used in the commission of the offence. The Inspector of Police seized the same in the presence of mediators. Hence, the charge-sheet. 5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case, numbered it as PRC No. 7 of 2007 and after completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session. It was numbered as S.C. No. 129 of 2007, and thereupon it was made over to the Court to learned Additional Sessions Judge Kadapa at Proddatur. 6. After appearance of the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, examined PWs. 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and also marked MOs.1 to 5. 8. 7. To bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, examined PWs. 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and also marked MOs.1 to 5. 8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same and stated that he was not available in the Town on that day and he was implicated falsely and that he would examine his wife as a witness but accused did not let in any defence evidence. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304(Part-II) IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him, as above, as against the original charge under Section 302 IPC. 10. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused, filed the present Appeal. 11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the accused on 18.02.2007 at about 09:00 p.m. in front of the house of Brahma Narayana @ Brahmaiah stabbed him and caused his death? (2) Whether the prosecution has proved the offence alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 12. POINT Nos. 1 & 2: Sri V. Raghu, learned legal-aid counsel, appearing for the appellant, would contend that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 i.e. wife of the deceased and neighbourer is interested in nature. The incident in question was said to be happened during night at 09:00 p.m. in front of the house of the deceased. PW-2 was a planted witness to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution did not examine the other direct witnesses to the occurrence and given up them without proper reasons. There was every doubt as to the electricity at the house of the deceased at the time of offence and it was very difficult for PWs. 1 and 2 to witness the occurrence. The Court below, without proper analyzation of the evidence on record, erroneously, convicted the accused. No proper points were formulated for consideration before the Court below. Other independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. 1 and 2 to witness the occurrence. The Court below, without proper analyzation of the evidence on record, erroneously, convicted the accused. No proper points were formulated for consideration before the Court below. Other independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. When the incident was occurred during night, prosecution was bound to prove as to how PWs. 1 and 2 identified the accused. Though, there was no dispute about the cause of death of the deceased but accused was innocent as such Appeal is liable to be allowed. 13. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State, would contend that the accused was not a stranger to the deceased. Accused was no other than brother-in-law of the deceased and PW-1 was the wife of the deceased. The Court below rightly negatived the contention of the accused that there was no possibility for PWs. 1 and 2 to identify the accused. Accused was no other than the close relative to the deceased and husband of sister-in-law of PW-1 and learned Additional Session Judge rightly believed the case of the prosecution. Pursuant to the confession made by the accused, the dagger was also seized at the instance of the accused in the presence of the mediators. The prosecution proved the death of deceased was of homicidal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in fact as against the original charge under Section 302 IPC convicted the accused under Section 304(Part-II) IPC and rightly imposed the punishment of seven years and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 14. There is no dispute that the de-facto complainant i.e. PW-1 is no other than the wife of the deceased. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased has a sister and accused is the husband of the sister of the deceased. These facts are not at all in dispute. 15. For better appreciation, firstly, it is pertinent to look into the allegations contained in Ex.P-1, statement of the de-facto complainant. The police recorded the statement of PW-1 on 18.02.2007 from 10:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. In Ex.P-1 PW-1 alleged that her marriage with the deceased took place about seven years ago and the deceased used to work as a compounder. She had two issues. The marriage of her sister-in-law was performed with Sanjanna i.e. the accused. The police recorded the statement of PW-1 on 18.02.2007 from 10:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. In Ex.P-1 PW-1 alleged that her marriage with the deceased took place about seven years ago and the deceased used to work as a compounder. She had two issues. The marriage of her sister-in-law was performed with Sanjanna i.e. the accused. Accused used to consume alcohol and beat his wife and used to send her to her parents house for money. They (de-facto complainant’s family) used to pay money and used to send her sister-in-law to the accused. While so, on 18.02.2007 at 05:00 p.m. accused came to her house and demanded money to drink alcohol and she and her husband (deceased) questioned the act of the accused saying that how many days they have to fulfill his demand and that they have no money. Then the accused threatened that he would come within one hour and if he does not pay the amount then, he will kill the deceased. On the same day at 09:00 p.m. accused came there and questioned the deceased as to why he did not pay the amount and when she (PW-1) questioned the act of the accused, accused picked up a dagger from his waist and stabbed the deceased on his right side chest and the deceased raised hue and cry and on hearing the cries, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and one Yellappa and others rushed there and accused absconded. As there was a bleeding to the deceased, they all taken him to the Government Hospital, where he died. 16. Now, coming to the evidence of PW-1, she narrated about the conduct of the accused in consuming alcohol and asking his wife to bring money from her in-laws and that her sister-in-law used to come to their house whenever the accused necked out her and they used to comply the demands of the accused several times. Ultimately, during Sivarathri festival, accused came to her house in an intoxicant stage and demanded her husband at 05:00 p.m. to pay the amount. Accused threatened her husband with dire consequences, when he refused to pay the amount. On the same day at about 09:00 p.m. while she and her husband were sitting outside of the house, accused came and demanded her husband for the amount. Accused threatened her husband with dire consequences, when he refused to pay the amount. On the same day at about 09:00 p.m. while she and her husband were sitting outside of the house, accused came and demanded her husband for the amount. When her husband refused to give the amount and questioned him as to how many times he has to satisfy the demands, accused abused him and threatened to kill him. Then, she questioned the behavior of the accused. Then the accused pushed her aside and abused her in filthy language and removed a short dagger (chura kathi) from his waist and stabbed on the right side abdomen of the deceased. A bleeding injury was caused to her husband and he raised cries and on hearing the cries, LWs. 2 to 5 and neighbourers came there. Then the accused ran away from the scene. She witnessed the bleeding injuries of her husband and the crime weapon, which is in the hands of the accused in the illumination of the street light which is in front of her house and even in the light of her house. She lifted the injured to hospital in the Auto and at the hospital, while undergoing treatment, he died at 10:30 p.m. Her husband used to work as Compounder at private hospital. Accused used to live by washing clothes and slaughtering sheep. She can identify the crime weapon which is marked as MO.1. She gave statement to the Police after death of her husband, which is marked as Ex.P-1. 17. Coming to the evidence of PW-2, he was a neighbourer. His name is D. Gurrappa @ Yellappa and his name was mentioned in Ex.P-1 as a witness to the occurrence. His evidence, in brief, is that accused is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He knows the accused. There are four houses between his house and the house of the deceased. There are six houses between his house and the house of the accused. Six months prior to the offence, accused used to demand the deceased and his parents for money to consume alcohol. On the next day of Sivarathri festival at 05:00 p.m. accused demanded the deceased and PW-1 for money. They refused to give money. Accused threatened the deceased that he would come within one hour and he would kill him if they are not going to pay the amount. On the next day of Sivarathri festival at 05:00 p.m. accused demanded the deceased and PW-1 for money. They refused to give money. Accused threatened the deceased that he would come within one hour and he would kill him if they are not going to pay the amount. Then, he (PW-2) pacified the matter and send the accused. Accused at 09:00 p.m. approached the house of the deceased and there was a galata in front of the house of the deceased. He (PW-2) is 10 feet away from the house of the deceased. He witnessed the accused stabbing the deceased with a dagger (chura kathi) on right abdomen of the deceased. He approached the deceased and on seeing him, the accused fled away. The deceased fell down with bleeding injuries. Then, the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Proddatur where he succumbed to injuries within 10 to 15 minutes. He witnessed the incident in the illumination of the electricity and it is not dark. 18. PW-3 is the inquest panchayatdar who supported the case of the prosecution. He signed on the inquest report, marked as Ex.P-2. 19. PW-4 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem report, Ex.P-3. 20. PW-5 is the panchayatdar for the seizure of bloodstained cement concrete and controlled cement concrete. 21. PW-6 is the mediator to the arrest of the accused and recovery of the crime weapon. 22. PW-7 is the SI of Police, who recorded the statement of PW-1 and registered the FIR. 23. PW-8 is the then Inspector of Police, Proddatur I Town PS, who was the Investigating Officer. 24. As seen from the evidence of PW-1, her evidence is in tune with Ex.P-1, statement recorded by Police from her. The presence of PW-2 as a witness to the occurrence was clearly mentioned in Ex.P-1. So, Ex.P-1 can be used to corroborate the testimony of PW-1 in the event of PW-1 supporting the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, it is a case where PW-1 supported the case of the prosecution in tune with the contents in Ex.P-1. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, the relationship between PW-1 and the deceased is not in dispute. There is also no dispute that accused married the sister of the deceased as such he is brother-in-law to the accused. 25. Admittedly, it is a case where PW-1 supported the case of the prosecution in tune with the contents in Ex.P-1. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, the relationship between PW-1 and the deceased is not in dispute. There is also no dispute that accused married the sister of the deceased as such he is brother-in-law to the accused. 25. During cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that with regard to the previous incidents where the accused demanded the amount from her sister-in-law and with regard to the incident happened at 05:00 p.m. there were no police reports. It is to be noticed that even according to the evidence of PW-1 in cross-examination explaining as to why she did not make any complaint earlier, she categorically deposed that as the accused is the husband of her sister-in-law and in order to safeguard the relation of her sister-in-law, there were no complaints made against the accused with regard to the earlier demands. So, the mere fact that neither the deceased nor PW-1, previously lodged any reports as to the conduct of the accused would not enable the accused to contend that the evidence of PW-1 is false. There is no dispute that the deceased used to work as a compounder. PW-1 during the course of cross-examination has spoken about the shift duties of the deceased as from 08:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. 01:00 p.m. to 09:00 p.m. and 09:00 p.m. to 08:00 a.m. He volunteers that on the date of offence, her husband came late to the house. She denied that her husband was in second shift duty on the date of offence. She voluntarily disclosed that her husband has not gone to the duty as it was a Sunday (Holiday) on the date of offence. To these answers spoken to by PW-1 no contra version was suggested. She deposed in cross-examination that there were street lamps in their street. Even she had electrical lamp at her house. She did not depose about the street lamps or the mode of illumination available in the street at the time of offence. She denied that there were no street lamps in the street near the scene of offence and there is no pial in front of her house. 26. During the course of cross-examination, PW-2 deposed about that the door number of his house is 25/649, Vasanthapeta street, Proddatur Town. She denied that there were no street lamps in the street near the scene of offence and there is no pial in front of her house. 26. During the course of cross-examination, PW-2 deposed about that the door number of his house is 25/649, Vasanthapeta street, Proddatur Town. The entrance of his house was facing towards north. The deceased house is facing towards east. He denied that there were 15 houses in between his house and the house of the deceased. He denied that he let out his house on rent to someone and denied that he is deposing false. As evident from the evidence of PW-2, he was neighbor to the house of the deceased and PW-1 and there remained nothing in the testimony of PW-2 to show that he was a planted witness. On the other hand, he was a neighbouring witness and his evidence is convincing. It is to be noticed that the contention of the accused is that he was falsely implicated in the case. There is no dispute that he was a resident of Proddatur Town. During the course of 313 Cr.P.C. examination, he put up a version that he was not available in the town on that day. Except a bald version in 313 Cr.P.C. examination, there remained nothing in favour of the plea of the accused that he was else where at the time of offence in question. The evidence of PW-1 was not at all challenged by suggesting anything that the accused was elsewhere at the time of offence. Similar is the situation in respect of the evidence of PW-2. 27. If the accused was elsewhere at the time of offence in question, he was supposed to put forth such a version even during investigation before the Investigating Officer. Nothing is suggested to PW-8, Investigating Officer, on behalf of the accused that the accused was elsewhere at the time of offence in question. So, the contention of the accused that he was elsewhere at the time of offence in question is not at all probabilized. PW-1 has no reason whatsoever to depose false against the accused. PW-2, the neighbouring witness, had no reason to depose false against the accused. So, the contention of the accused that he was elsewhere at the time of offence in question is not at all probabilized. PW-1 has no reason whatsoever to depose false against the accused. PW-2, the neighbouring witness, had no reason to depose false against the accused. With regard to the contention of the accused that there was no possibility for PW-1 to identify him, this Court would like to make it clear that the offence in question was happened at 09:00 p.m. at the house of the deceased and PW-1. It was not an odd time. It was happened in front of the house of the deceased. So, by then, PW-1 and deceased were not sleeping. When the time of occurrence was not a sleeping time, by then illumination was supposed to be available in the house of PW-1 and the deceased. As evident from the contention of the accused only on account of the fact that the time of offence was at 09:00 p.m. accused wanted to take an advantage on the ground that there was no possibility for PWs. 1 and 2 to identity him. Accused was not a stranger to the family of PW-1 and the deceased. He was not a stranger to PW-2, who was a neighbouring witness. The evidence adduced by the prosecution that PWs. 1 and 2 were witnesses to the occurrence is fully convincing. Hence, the defence of the accused before the Court below in this regard is not at all tenable. Even the accused has gone to the extent of eliciting from the mouth of PW-1 as regards the timings regarding the shift duties of the deceased. She categorically deposed that as it was a holiday i.e. Sunday, deceased did not go to the duty. Apart from that, even the deceased was also present at 05:00 p.m. according to the case of the prosecution and evidence of PW-1, when the accused demanded PW-1 and the deceased to pay the amount to consume alcohol. According to PWs. 1 and 2 accused threatened the deceased to kill the deceased by coming after some time in case if his demand for money is not complied. This is categorically testified by PW-2. So, PW-2 was a witness to both the episodes. Under the circumstances, the effort made by the accused to show that there was no possibility for PWs. 1 and 2 accused threatened the deceased to kill the deceased by coming after some time in case if his demand for money is not complied. This is categorically testified by PW-2. So, PW-2 was a witness to both the episodes. Under the circumstances, the effort made by the accused to show that there was no possibility for PWs. 1 and 2 to identify him is nothing but fallacious. In my considered view, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 with regard to the manner of attack made against the accused by the deceased is concerned, is fully convincing. 28. As evident from the evidence of PW-3, he was present at the time of inquest and he opined that the accused stabbed the deceased. Ex.P-2 is the inquest report. According to the evidence of PW-8, he examined other witnesses during the proceedings of the inquest. So, it is a clear fact that the Investigating Officer examined PWs. 1 and 2 before conducting inquest. 29. There is recovery of MO.1 weapon which was used in the commission of the offence in the presence of PW-6 by the Investigating Officer. According to the evidence of PW-6, on three days subsequent to the offence Police arrested the accused at Muniswamy Temple at 04:10 p.m. in his presence and he acted as a panchayatdar. The arrest panchanama is Ex.P-5. His further evidence is that pursuant to the disclosure statement, accused led them to his house and brought crime weapon and handed over to the Police. The evidence of PW-8, Inspector of Police, in this regard is consistent with that of the evidence of PW-6, the panchayatdar. Nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of PWs. 6 and 8 so as to disbelieve the alleged theory of recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence. So, there is not only the direct evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 to prove that the accused stabbed the deceased at 09:00 p.m. at the house of the deceased and even there is convincing evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Court below with regard to recovery of the dagger which was used in the commission of the offence. 30. PW-5 was a mediator to the observation of the scene of offence. 30. PW-5 was a mediator to the observation of the scene of offence. PW-7 was the SI of Police who proceeded to the Government Hospital first on receipt of the hospital intimation under Ex.P-7 and recorded the statement of PW-1. He has spoken about the fact that after returning to the Police Station, he registered the FIR under Section 302 IPC and Ex.P-9 is the original FIR. It is to be noticed that according to the evidence of PW-8, Ex.P-2 inquest report was conducted over the dead body of the deceased at the house of the deceased. A vain attempt was made by the accused during the course of cross-examination that the deceased went to the duty on that particular point of time which PW-1 denied. Accused did not dispute death of the deceased and did not dispute the cause of death of the deceased. He did not dispute the place of inquest over the dead body of the deceased. So, it is not the defence of the accused that by suggesting anything as to how the deceased died. So, the very defence of the accused before the Court below was nothing but an afterthought. When the accused pleaded the plea of alibi during the course of 313 Cr.P.C. examination, which he failed to put forth before PWs. 1 and 2, he was bound to probabilize the same. He miserably failed to probabilize the same. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Proddatur rightly believed the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 in this regard. As evident from Ex.P-3, the post-mortem report, coupled with the evidence of Medical Officer, it is clear that the cause of death was on account of the haemorrhage and shock due to injury to right lobe of liver. So, the prosecution adduced medical evidence to prove the death of the deceased was homicidal. In my considered view, the prosecution before the Court below categorically proved that on the date of offence at 09:00 p.m. accused attacked the deceased with a dagger and stabbed him over his body and caused the death of the deceased ultimately. 31. The learned Additional Sessions Judge looked into the over all facts and circumstances and was of the view that the prosecution did not prove the exact intention of the accused to commit murder. 31. The learned Additional Sessions Judge looked into the over all facts and circumstances and was of the view that the prosecution did not prove the exact intention of the accused to commit murder. In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the prosecution could establish the offence under Section 302(Part-II) IPC i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The above said findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are not challenged by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, in my considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly believed the case of the prosecution and rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 304(Part-II) IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed against the accused before the Court below. 32. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2007, dated 26.07.2010, on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 33. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court including the trial Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 03.04.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in S.C. No. 129 of 2007, dated 26.07.2010, and to report compliance to this Court. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. 34. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.