{"id":194896,"date":"1997-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997"},"modified":"2018-12-06T17:48:02","modified_gmt":"2018-12-06T12:18:02","slug":"shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997","title":{"rendered":"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: M.K.Mukherjee<\/div>\n
Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, S. Saghir Ahmad<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHABAD PULLA REDDY & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t20\/08\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nM.K. MUKHERJEE, S. SAGHIR AHMAD\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tTHE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST,1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Hon’ble Mr.Justive M.K.Mukherjee
\n\t      Hon’ble Mr.Justive S.Saghir Ahmad
\nD.  Prakash   Reddy  and   G.  Narasimhulu,  Advs.  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
G. Prabhakar, Adv. for the Respondent
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nThe following Judgment of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nM.K.MUKHERJEE, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   In Sessions  Case No.  48 of  1983 on  the file  of the
\nSession Judge,\tWarangal 26  persons were initally placed on
\ntrial to  anser charges under SEctions 120-B, 148, 449, 452,
\n460 and\t 302 I.P.C.  An alternative charge under Section 396
\nI.P.C. was also framed against them.  During pendency of the
\ntrial A-12  and A-14  died while  A-13 and  A-25  absconded.
\nHence, the trial continued against the other twenty two.  On
\nconclusion thereof  the learned\t Judge acquitted  A-1 of all
\nthe charges and convicted the others as under:\n<\/p>\n
i)   A-2 to  A-11, A-15,  A-23, A-24, and A-26 under Section
\n     120-B I.P.C;\n<\/p>\n
ii)  A-8, A-15\tto A-22,  A-24 and  A-26 under\tSection\t 148
\n     I.P.C;\n<\/p>\n
iii) A-15 to A-22 under Section 449 I.P.C;\n<\/p>\n
iv)  A-22 under Section 302 I.P.C. (simpliciter);\n<\/p>\n
v)   A-8, A-15\tto A-21, A-24 and A-26 under Section 302\/149
\n     I.P.C. and\n<\/p>\n
vi)  A-2 to  A-7, A-9to\t A-11 and A-23 under Section 302\/109
\n     I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  convictions so recorded they were sentenced to
\ndifferent terms\t of imprisonment  with a  direction that the
\nsentences shall run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Against their  convictions and sentences they preferred
\nseparate appeals  in the  High Court.  In disposing  of\t the
\nappeals by  a common  judgment the  High Court set aside the
\nconvictions of\tA-2 to\tA-11, A-15,  A-16, A-23 and A-24 but
\nconfirmedthose of  A-17 to  A-22.    As\t regards  A-26,\t his
\nconviction under  Section 120-\tB I.P.C.  was set  aside but
\nthat under Section 302\/149 I.P.C. maintained.  Assailing the
\nabove judgment\tof the High Court A-17 to A-22 and A-26 have
\nfiled these  appeals which have been heard together and this
\njudgment will dispose of them.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The prosecutioon case, to the extent it is necessary to
\nbe reproduced  and is relevant for disposal of these appeals
\n[now that  the charge  of conspiracy  has failed and some of
\nthe accused have been acquitted], is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)   A-2  is the  son of A-1, A-4 is the son-in-law of A-3,
\nA-3 and A-24 are brothers. A-7 is the son of A-24, A-1 to A-
\n8 and  A-25 are\t the residents of Upparigudem village.\tA-10
\nand A-11,  who are brothers, are residents of Moduguladudem.
\nA-15 to\t A-23 are  residents of\t different villages. nookala
\nManagamma (P.W.11),  an ssueless widow, adopted the deceased
\nNookala Narayan\t Reddy.\t The deceased also did not beget any
\nchildren and,  therefore, he  adopted Nookala  Ranjith Reddy
\n(P.W.1) as  his son.  Smt. Rangamma, mothr-in-law of P.W.11,
\nhad adopted  A-1, son  of her elder sister.  The families of
\nRangamma and  Mangamma possessed  considerable properties in
\nor around  Upparigudem.\t   Over\t the  adoptions\t there\twere
\nmisuderstandings between the above two families which led to
\ndisputes regarding  their properties.  Later on the disputes
\nwere referred  to arbitration  and the\tarbitrators  decided
\nthat P.W.11  and the  deceased should  take 9\/16th share and
\nRangamma and  A-1 should  take 7\/6th share.  In spite of teh
\naward,\tthe  disputes  and  differences\t continued  and\t two
\nfactions were created: one led by the deceased and the other
\nby A-1.\t  To  strengthen his  faction A-1  brought  A-24,  a
\nresident of  Bojjannapeta village,  to his village after his
\nrelease from a murder case and appointed him as his Seradar.
\nA-26, who  was originally  a resident  of  Gudur,  was\talso
\nbrought by A-1 as his farm servant.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  In the  night of  July 10, 1981, A-12 and two strangers
\ncame to\t te house of A-24 and slept there.  On the following
\nmorning i.e. on July 11, 1981, all three of them went to the
\nsapota garden of A-24, A-2 to A-5, A-7, A-15, A-23, A-24 and
\nA-26 also  came and  joined in\tthe talks  with A-12.  At or
\nabout mid  day A-24 asked Mathian (P.W.8), his farm servant,
\nto bring  lunch and he obliged.\t In the afternoon A-23 asked
\nP.W.8 to bring two axes and 10 cart pegs.  Accordingly P.W.8
\nbrought them.\tTh  A-12 asked P.W.8 to fo towards ‘Sankeesa
\nBata’ saying  that six\tpersons would  come and asked him to
\nbring them.   Accordingly,  P.W.8 went to sankeesa bata, saw
\npwesons coming\tand brought them to sapota garden.  They all
\nproceeded towards  the house  of the deceased.\tAt that time
\nthe decased,  his son  P.W.1, his  domestic servant-cum-cook
\nCenkatiah (P.W.2),  Kishtiah (P.W.5),  another farm servant,
\nand P.W.11  were there.\t  At  or about\t8.00  P.M.P.W.2 told
\nthem that  dinner was ready and asked them to get up.  P.W.5
\nthen got  up to\t go back  to his  house and  opened the main
\nentrance door  only to\tfind some persons there.  Suspecting
\nfoulplay P.W.5\twent out of the room through the door-way on
\nthe south and having closed it looked through the peepholes.
\nHe saw\tA-15, A-17  and A-22  entering he  bed room  of\t the
\ndeceased, and  then dragging  him.   They then snatched away
\nthe gun\t (M.O.1) from  underneath te bed of the deceased and
\none of them aimed the gun at the decased and asked him where
\nbe had kept gold and other valuables.  One of the miscreants
\nthen broke  open the  wooden box  and all papers were thrown
\npell-mell.   Then P.W.1,  who was in the other room, saw the
\ndeceased beling dragged into the bed room of P.W.1, A-15, A-
\n17 and\tA-22 then  opened the  wooden box  and took  away 19
\ncartridges and\tcash terefrom  and also\t two ear rings, gold
\nchain and bangles from P.W.11.\tMeanshile, A-18 to A-21 also
\njoined A-15,  A-17 and A-22.  When P.Ws. 2 and 11 pleaded to
\nleave the  deceased, they  were pushed\tin the\tbed room  of
\np.W.1 and  bolted from outside.\t The miscreants then brought
\nthe deceased  out and  axed him\t to death.   Afterwards they
\nleft the place raising singans.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  In the  early morning  of July  12, 1981  P.W.1 went to
\nSeerole Police\tStation and  gave a  report of\tthe incident
\n(Ext. P-12)  to the  Sub Inspector  Ramesh Babu (P.W.28) who
\nregistered a  case thereupon.  P.W. 28\tgave an\t information
\nabout the  incident to\tSri Murthy  (P.W.31),  Inspector  of
\nPolice, and  bothe of  them reached the scene of occurrence.
\nP.W.31 held  inquest over the dead body and sent it for post
\nmortem examination.   Dr.  Reddy (P.W.17)  conducted autopsy
\nand found  7 external injuries and out of them injuries 1 to
\n6 were\tover the head and other vital parts of the body.  He
\nopined that  the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a
\nresult of mutiple injuries.\n<\/p>\n
(d)  In course\tof investigation  Sri Inniah  (P.W.28), Sub-
\nInspector of  Police, Khammam  arrested A-26  at Yudlapuram.
\nFrom his  possession two  cartridges (M.O.15) were recovered
\nand  they  were\t seized\t under\tExt.  P-47.  P.W.29  sent  a
\nrequisition to\tSri Krishnaiah (P.W.16), Judicial Magistrate
\nof Madhira  to recrd  the confessional\tstatement  of  A-26.
\nAccordingly A-26 was produced before P.W.16 and after giving
\nnecessary  warnings  and  putting  necessary  questions,  he
\nrecorded the  confessional staement  of\t A-26  (Ext.  P-34).
\nAfter receiving\t the message  about the\t arrest of  A-26 and
\nmaking of  his confessional  statemnt P.W.31  went to Khamma
\nand obtained  a copy of the confession.\t On the basis of the
\ndetails\t  mentioned   therein,\t he   proceeded\t  with\t the
\ninvestigation.\t Sri Reddy (P.W.30) the Inspector of Police,
\nKhammam arrested  A-22 on  September 13, 1981 and seized the
\ngun (M.O.1)  and 12  cartridges under Ext. P-46.  On October
\n4, 1981\t P.W. 31  arrested A-17,  A-18, A-19, A-20 and A-21.
\nFrom A-17  he seized gold chain (M.O.5), from A-18 a pair of
\ngold bangles  (M.O.6), from A-19 a torch light (m.O.8), from
\nA-20 a\tgold ring  (M.O.3) and\tfrom A-21 a pair of gold ear
\nflowers\t (M.O.7).   After  their   arrest  P.W.31   gave   a
\nrequisition to\tSro  Lachiah  (P.W.6)  Judicial\t Magistrate,
\nNarasampet to  conduct test identification parade of A-15 to
\nA-21.\tAccordingly P.W.6  conducted a\ttest  identification
\nparade on  4.1.1982 in\twhich P.W.1  identified A-17 to A-21
\nand P.W.2  identified A-18,  A-20  and\tA-21,P.W.31  gave  a
\nsimilar requisition  for A-16  and A-22\t and in\t the  second
\nparade held  on january 12, 1982 P.W.1 and P.W.10 identified
\nA-22.  After completion of the investigation P.W.31 laid the
\ncharge sheet on June 14, 1982.\n<\/p>\n
5.   When examined  under Section  313 Cr.P.C.\tthe  accused
\npersons pleaded\t not guilty  to the  charges levlled against
\nthem.\tSo far as the appellants before us ae concerned, the
\nspecific defence  of A-17  to A-21  was that they were taken
\ninto custody much earlier than on October 4, 1981 as claimed
\nby the\tpolice and  that their\tphotographs were  taken\t and
\nshown to  the identifying witnesses. A-22 stated that he was
\ntaken from  his house  at kaikondagudem\t and  shown  to\t the
\nidentifying witnesses.\tA-26 stated that three days prior to
\nthe alleged  incident he had gone to Ch9innakodur village to
\nsee his\t alling mother\tand there  the police  arrested\t him
\nThey took him in a jeep fist to the outskirts of the village
\nand then  to Mahabubabad.  There the Inspector of Police and
\nSub-Inspector of Police beat him and coerced him to confess,
\nand for\t three days  continuously he  was beaten.    On\t the
\nfourth day  he was shifted to Dornakal nd there he was again
\nbeaten by  the Inspector  of police  and  the  Inspector  of
\nPolice pressurised  him to  make a  statement regarding\t the
\noffence.   He was  confined illegally at the Police Station,
\nDornakal for  about six or seven days and later he was again
\nshifted to  Mahabubabd and  he was  pressurised\t to  make  a
\nstatement before  the Magistrate  as directed by the police.
\nHe was\tthreatened that\t he would be shot dead if he did not
\nmake a statement as wanted by the police.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The prosecution  examined in  all 31  witnesses of whom
\nP.Ws. 1,2,  5 and  11 figured  as eye  witnesses.   Both the
\ntrial Court  and the  High Court  discussed the\t evidence of
\nthese witnesses\t at length  and found that their evidence so
\nfar as\tit related  to the manner in which the incident took
\nplace was  satisfactory and  safely  reliable.\t  Since\t the
\nF.I.R.\tpromptly   lodged  by\tP.W.1  also   contained\t the
\nsubstratum of  the prosecution case and the medical evidence
\ncorroborated the  version of  the eye  witnesses, the Courts
\nbelow concluded\t that the  incident took place in the manner
\nalleged by  the prosecution.   We  do not  find\t any  reason
\ntherefore to  disturb the  above findings.   Incidentally it
\nmay be mentioned that the learned counsel for the appellants
\nad not assail the above findings.\n<\/p>\n
7.   That brings  us to\t the crucial  question as to whether
\nthe prosecution\t has been  able to  conclusively  prove\t the
\ninvolvement of\tthe appellants\tin  the\t above\toffences  of
\nrioting and  murder.   To connect  A-17\t to  A-22  with\t the
\ncrimes, the  prosecution relied\t upon the  evidence of their
\nidentification\tin   Court  by\t the   witnesses   and\t the
\ncorroborative evidence\tof their  earlier identification  in
\ntwo test  identification (T.I.)\t parades held  on January 4,
\n1982 and  January 12, 1982 by a Judicial Magistrate (P.W.6).
\nThe evidence  of P.Ws  1 and  2 along  with that  of  P.W.6,
\nproves that  in the T.I. parades P.W.1 identified A-17, A-19
\nand A-21 and P.W.2 identified A-18, A-20and A-21.\n<\/p>\n
     In other  words, A-17  and A-19 stand identified by one
\nwitness, namely,  P.W.1 and  A-20 and  A-21 by\tboth the one
\nwitness, namely,  P.W.1\t and  A-20  and\t A-21  by  both\t the
\nwitnesses, namely, P.Ws 1 and 2.  Though the trial Court and
\nthe High  Court accepted the evidence of such identification
\nof Court  and the  High Court  accepted the evidence of such
\nidentification in  Court  as  it  was  corroborated  by\t the
\nevidence of  their identification in T.I. parade, we find it
\ndifficult to  rely upon\t the same  as no  explanation – much
\nless plausible\t– was  offered by  the prosecution  for\t the
\nnordinate delay\t in holding  the T.I.  parades.\t  As earlier
\nnoticed, the  occurence took place on July 11, 1981 and five
\nof the\tabove  six  accused  persons  (A-17  to\t A-21)\twere
\narrested on  Otober 4,\t1981 and the T.I parades were held 3
\nmonths after  their arrest.   This  unsual  and\t unexplained
\ndelay in  holding that\tafter such  long lapse\tof time\t the
\nwitnesses were\tstill able  to have  a clear  image  of\t the
\naccused in  their minds\t and identify  them correctly at the
\nidentification parades.\t So far as A-22 is concerned, he was
\narrested  earlier  –  (on  September  3,  1981)\t –  and\t was
\nidentified in  the T.I.\t parade\t by  P.W.1  as\tone  of\t the
\nmiscreants.   He was also identifie by Papaiah (P.W.10), who
\nclaimed to  have seen  him earlier  in the  day in question,
\ngoing across  the field\t armed with an axe.  For the reasons
\nearlier\t mentioned,   we  are  also  unable  to\t accept\t the
\nidentification of  A-22 by  P.Ws.  1  and  10.\t  The  other
\nevidence on which the prosecution relied upon – and both the
\nlearned Courts\tacceped to  convict A-17  to A-21  – is\t the
\nalleged recovery  of gold  chain (M.O.5),  a  pair  of\tgold
\nbangles (M.O.6),  a torch light (M.O.8), a gold ring (M.O.3)
\nand  a\t pair  of   gold  ear-flowers\t(M.O.7)\t from\tthem
\nrespectively, on  October 4,  1981 when\t all  of  them\twere
\narrested.   According to  the prosecution all those articles
\neither belonged\t to the\t deceased or  to the  members of his
\nfamily.\t In our considered view, the evidence of recovery is
\ntoo artificial\tto be  believed.  It seems strange that even
\nafter three months of the incident all of them were carrying
\na stolen  article each 0 including a torch light.  If really
\nthey had  stolen article each – including a torch light.  If
\nreally they  ad stolen\tsuch articles,\tat the\ttime of\t the
\nmurder, it  wasexpected in  the fitness\t of things that they
\nwould dispose  of them\tas early  as possible – more so when
\nthe nature  of articles\t was such that they could pass hands
\nquicky.\t  This apart,  even if\twe proceed  o the assumption
\nthat evidence  regarding the  identification of the articles
\nand  recovery\tthereof\t is   acceptable,  still   then,  no
\npresumption can\t be drawn  after such  a long  lapse of time
\nthat they  were party  to  the\tmurder\titself.\t   The\tmost
\nfavourable conclusion  that can be drawn for the prosecution
\nfrom such  recovery is\tthat they  dishonestly retained\t the
\nstolen roperties knowing them to be stolen but in absence of
\nany charge  framed under  Section 411  I.P.C. and  on  their
\nacquittal of  the charge  under Section 396 I.P.C., no order
\nof conviction  can be recorded against them.  So far as A-22
\nis concerned,  the allegation  is that\tthe gun belonging to
\nthe deceased  along with  cartridges was  recovered from his
\npossession, but\t then the  only reliable evidence in support
\nthereof is  that those\tarms and  ammunition were  recovered
\nfrom an\t open shed  belonging to P.W.9 and not from him.  It
\ncannot, therefore,  be said  that the  prosecution has\tbeen
\nable to\t conclusively prove  its case  against A-22, Lastly,
\ncoming to A-26, we find that the prosecution relied upon his
\nretracted judicial  confession and  some other\tevidence  in
\ncorroboration thereof.\t  On  carefully\t going\tthrough\t the
\nconfessional statement\twe find\t tht A-26  confessed about a
\nconspiracy to  commit the murder of the decased, but did not
\nat all\tconfess that he was a party to the murder.  In other
\nwords, so  far as  the incident that took place in the night
\nof July\t 11, 1981  in which  the decased met with his death,
\nthe  statement\t made  by  A-26\t before\t the  Magistrate  is
\nexculpatory.  One the confession made by A-26 is left out of
\nconsideration –\t as it\tmust be\t in view of the acquittal of
\nthe charge  under Section  120-B I.P.C.\t – there is no other
\nsubstantive evidene  to connect\t him with  the\toffences  in
\nquestion.   Incidentally it  may be  mentioned him  with the
\noffences in question.  Incidentally it may be mentioned that
\nthough, admittedly,  A-26 was a resident of the same village
\nand was known to P.W.1 from long, he did not name him as one
\nof the miscreants nor mention his name in the F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
8.   For the  foregoing discussion,  we allow these appeals,
\nset aside  the order  of convictions  and sentences recorded
\nagainst the appellants and acquit them.\t The appellants, who
\nare on bail are discharged from their respective ball bonds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997 Author: M.K.Mukherjee Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, S. Saghir Ahmad PETITIONER: SHABAD PULLA REDDY & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/08\/1997 BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S. SAGHIR AHMAD ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 20TH DAY OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194896","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-06T12:18:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-06T12:18:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2790,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997\",\"name\":\"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-06T12:18:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-06T12:18:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997","datePublished":"1997-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-06T12:18:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997"},"wordCount":2790,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997","name":"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-06T12:18:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shabad-pulla-reddy-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-20-august-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 August, 1997"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194896","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194896"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194896\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194896"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194896"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194896"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}