{"id":77607,"date":"2003-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003"},"modified":"2018-10-25T09:41:38","modified_gmt":"2018-10-25T04:11:38","slug":"goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  519-521 of 2003\nAppeal (crl.)  672-674 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nGoura Venkata Reddy\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Andhra Pradesh\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT,J<\/p>\n<p>\tDifferent political ideologies may be followed in a democratic set<br \/>\nup; that is but natural. But when differences become physical and lead<br \/>\nto loss of life by violent acts it reflected sadly on the political<br \/>\nmaturity of people and the citizens at large. The present case, as the<br \/>\nprosecution version shows, is one of those large number of instances<br \/>\nwhere physical violence has led to loss of lives of two persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellants who faced trial along with 11 others and two<br \/>\ndeceased persons, and the prosecution witnesses belong to different<br \/>\npolitical parties.  The difference between them is said to be long-<br \/>\nstanding on account of political rivalry, and it reached its crescendo<br \/>\non 18th October, 1995 and 19th October, 1995. On the first of the dates,<br \/>\nrelative of one political leader was allegedly kidnapped and his dead<br \/>\nbody was found later on the next day i.e. 19th October, 1995 to which the<br \/>\npresent case relates. The two deceased persons, namely, Ambi Reddy and<br \/>\nChinna Ramasubbaiah (hereinafter referred to as D-1 and D-2) along with<br \/>\nPWs 1 to 4 and two others were traveling by four motorcycle with two<br \/>\noccupants in each.  As the prosecution version shows the 20 persons way<br \/>\nlaid them. D-1 and D-2 were dragged out of the motorcycle and at the<br \/>\ninstigation of A-1 Goura Venkata Reddy and one M. Venkateswara Reddy<br \/>\nothers picked up stones from the way side and threw them causing<br \/>\ngrievous injuries.  After causing injuries, assailants-accused persons<br \/>\nwent away.  The occurrence took place at 11.45 a.m.  The accused persons<br \/>\nwere traveling in a Jeep and two lorries. The injured persons were taken<br \/>\nto the hospital; one of them (D-2) was declared dead at the first<br \/>\nhospital where he was taken.  The doctor, however, advised the relative<br \/>\nto take the other deceased D-1 to another hospital for better treatment.<br \/>\nAt the said hospital in spite of the best efforts his life could not be<br \/>\nsaved. The first information report was lodged around 1.00 p.m.<br \/>\nInvestigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, the charge sheet<br \/>\nwas placed. It is to be noted that during investigation the name of M.<br \/>\nVenkateswara Reddy was deleted pursuant to the directions of the Sub<br \/>\nDivisional Police Officer.  As such in total 19 accused persons were<br \/>\ncharge sheeted.  However, the case of one was separated and 18 accused<br \/>\npersons were tried.  Out of them A-1 to A-8 were convicted, and the rest<br \/>\nwere acquitted.  A-1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section<br \/>\n302 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the<br \/>\n&#8216;IPC&#8217;). A-2 to A-8 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections<br \/>\n302 and 147.  A-1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, while<br \/>\nA-2 to A-8 were similarly sentenced for the offence punishable under<br \/>\nSection 302 and two years for offence punishable under Section 147. The<br \/>\nState preferred an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh<br \/>\nquestioning the acquittal of the 10 persons and for non-conviction of A-<br \/>\n1 under Section 147 and for such non-conviction under Section 148 in<br \/>\nrelation to A-2 to A-8.  The convicted persons also questioned<br \/>\ncorrectness of the their conviction.  The High Court by the impugned<br \/>\norder upheld the acquittal of the 10 accused persons.  Appeal relating<br \/>\nto non-conviction under Section 148 so far as A-2 to A-8 are concerned<br \/>\nwas also dismissed.  In case of A-1 conviction was made under Section<br \/>\n147 and by a modified order sentence of two years was imposed.  The<br \/>\nconvicted accused persons have preferred these appeals questioning the<br \/>\ncommon judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh<br \/>\nHigh Court.  As the appeals related to the same judgment, they are taken<br \/>\nup together for disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording to Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the appellants, the judgments of the trial Court as well as of the<br \/>\nHigh Court cannot be maintained on more grounds than one. There was<br \/>\ndelay in lodging the complaint. In the first information report only 7<br \/>\nnames were given out of which name of M. Venkateswara Reddy against whom<br \/>\nspecific overt acts were attributed by the assailants was deleted from<br \/>\nthe accused persons. PWs 1 to 4 did not suffer any injuries, which is<br \/>\nunnatural.  There was no pre-meditation to commit any offence; as is<br \/>\nevident from the fact that none of the accused persons were armed. In<br \/>\nrespect of accused Jaidip the alibi was accepted. Only partisan related<br \/>\nand interested witnesses have been examined.  It was stated in the first<br \/>\ninformation report that 7 named persons and others whose names were not<br \/>\nindicated were the assailants. In respect of A-6 it was stated that his<br \/>\npresence came to be known. Obviously, PW-1 who was an eyewitness<br \/>\nincluded his name in array of other accused persons. Though his claim in<br \/>\nCourt is to have seen the occurrence, in the first information report a<br \/>\ndifferent picture was given and this renders his presence improbable.<br \/>\nThere were serious laches in investigation and 19 stones pieces were<br \/>\ncollected as if only 19 stones were lying. This was obviously cooked up<br \/>\nto be in line with 19 injuries found on the bodies of the two deceased<br \/>\npersons.  The medical evidence i.e. the post mortem report shows that at<br \/>\nthe time of post mortem it was noticed that the stomach of each of the<br \/>\ndeceased was empty. It is improbable that their stomach would be empty<br \/>\nat the point of time the occurrence is claimed to have taken place. It<br \/>\nis the defence version that two dead bodies were found on the way, it<br \/>\nwas not known who were the assailants and because of hostility the names<br \/>\nof the appellants have been incorporated. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-4<br \/>\nis highly unreliable and is contradictory in terms.  It was further<br \/>\nsubmitted that there was a police station nearby at which report could<br \/>\nhave been given by those who had not accompanied the injured persons to<br \/>\nthe hospital. The trial Court and the High Court have not considered the<br \/>\ncase of the accused in the proper perspective. In any event Section 302<br \/>\nIPC has no application.\n<\/p>\n<p>In response, Mrs. K. Amreshwari, learned senior counsel, appearing<br \/>\nfor the State submitted that concurrent findings of fact have been<br \/>\nrecorded by the trial Court and the High Court. After lengthy cross-<br \/>\nexamination in great detail, nothing infirm has been pointed out by the<br \/>\naccused persons. Merely because one stone each was thrown, that cannot<br \/>\nrule out application of 302 IPC, as was submitted by learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellants.  A-1 is liable to be convicted under Section 109 also<br \/>\nbecause at his instigation the other assailants&#8217; acts were done thereof.<br \/>\nThere was no delay in lodging the first information report. The<br \/>\noccurrence, according to prosecution, took place at 10.45 a.m. The<br \/>\nimmediate reaction of the witnesses who were present would be to save<br \/>\nthe lives of the injured persons.  It is clear from evidence that they<br \/>\nwere not dead immediately.  Therefore, their conduct in trying to shift<br \/>\nthe injured persons to the hospital for treatment is natural and normal.<br \/>\nIt is pointed out that everybody&#8217;s mind would be focused on how best<br \/>\ntreatment can be provided to save the lives.  The death of one of the<br \/>\ndeceased persons was around 12.00 noon.  High Court had rightly noted<br \/>\nthat the witnesses would have taken sometime to regain composure and to<br \/>\nprepare first information report. When these normal circumstances are<br \/>\ntaken note of, it cannot be said that there was any delay in lodging the<br \/>\nfirst information report. So far as absence of injury on the witness is<br \/>\nconcerned it has come in evidence that A-1 instigated the accused<br \/>\npersons to assault the witnesses who were present and then they ran<br \/>\naway.  In this background the absence of injury on them cannot be a<br \/>\nsuspicious circumstance. Merely because the name of M. Venkateswara<br \/>\nReddy has been deleted, that cannot be a ground to give benefit to the<br \/>\naccused persons. Even though the manner in which the name of said person<br \/>\nwas deleted raises the eyebrows, some explanation has been offered with<br \/>\nthe acceptability of which we are not concerned in the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>That brings us to the other crucial aspect i.e. whether the<br \/>\npresence of A-6 at the time of occurrence is made out and whether the<br \/>\ncase falls under Section 302 IPC in the factual ground indicated.  So<br \/>\nfar as A-6 is concerned, in the first information report the PW-1 has<br \/>\nstated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;..One Raghu Ramaiah of Cherukucherla was<br \/>\nalso known to have participated in the occurrence<br \/>\nalong with Goura Venkata Reddy.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Clarificatory statement accompanied the first information report<br \/>\nwhich was lodged at 1.00 p.m. goes to show that PW-1 was not sure of the<br \/>\npresence of A-6. But in the FIR and statements of other witnesses, name<br \/>\nof A-6 clearly finds place.  PW-1 has explained how the confusion has<br \/>\narisen and Courts below have accepted it.  There were twenty assailants.<br \/>\nMerely because one witness has entertained some doubt and was not sure<br \/>\nof his presence and has heard about it, same cannot be a ground to doubt<br \/>\nveracity of evidence tendered by PWs 2 to 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>Though it cannot be said as a rule of universal application that<br \/>\nif one stone is thrown causing injuries, Section 302 IPC is ruled out,<br \/>\nwe find from the doctor&#8217;s evidence that all injuries found on the bodies<br \/>\nof the two deceased persons individually were not held to be fatal.  As<br \/>\nthe prosecution version goes to show 19 persons including the 10 who<br \/>\nwere acquitted had thrown stones.  Looking to the size of the stone as<br \/>\ndescribed in the documents on record, they do not appear very big.  Here<br \/>\nagain, no general rule can be laid that small stone cannot cause any<br \/>\ninjury leading to death punishable under Section 302 IPC.  It would<br \/>\ndepend upon the facts of each case. In the case at hand it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that any particular injury was intended which would result in<br \/>\ndeath.  But the accused persons can certainly be attributed with the<br \/>\nintention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to<br \/>\ncause death.  Therefore, instead of conviction under Section 302 IPC,<br \/>\nthe proper conviction would be under Section 304 Part I for accused-<br \/>\nappellants. Though names of A-7 and A-8 do not appear in the first<br \/>\ninformation report, but in the statements of witnesses recorded<br \/>\nimmediately after occurrence their names were indicated. In the first<br \/>\ninformation report and the clarificatory statement appended thereto,<br \/>\nsome names were given and it was clearly stated that some other persons<br \/>\nwere also the assailants.  This being the position mere absence of names<br \/>\nof A-7 and A-8 would not make any difference. Merely because the names<br \/>\nwere not specifically mentioned but were spoken by the witnesses<br \/>\nimmediately thereafter that cannot be sufficient by itself to create<br \/>\nsuspicion. So far as A-1 is concerned, his conviction has to be under<br \/>\nSection 304 read with Section 109 IPC. Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent submitted that instigation was cause of murder and merely<br \/>\nbecause the conviction is altered, that cannot be ground for non-<br \/>\napplication of Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of<br \/>\nabetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an<br \/>\noffence.  A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any<br \/>\nperson to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons<br \/>\nin any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally<br \/>\naids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things<br \/>\nare essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word &#8216;instigate&#8217;<br \/>\nliterally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion<br \/>\nto do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or<br \/>\nintentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107.<br \/>\nSection 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence<br \/>\nof abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such<br \/>\nabetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment<br \/>\nprovided for the original offence. &#8216;Act abetted&#8217; in Section 109 means<br \/>\nthe specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of<br \/>\nwhich a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the<br \/>\nproved offence.  In the instant case, the abetted persons have been<br \/>\nconvicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304. So in<br \/>\nthe case of A-1 it is Section 304 read with Section 109 IPC, that is<br \/>\nattracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the ultimate analysis, conviction of the appellants is altered<br \/>\nto Section 304 IPC, except in case of A-1 where the conviction is under<br \/>\nSection 304 read with Section 109 IPC.  In each of the cases, the<br \/>\nsentence will be 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and<br \/>\nsentence in respect of other offences, will stand and the sentence<br \/>\ntherefor shall run concurrently, as ordered by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003 Author: J Arijit Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 519-521 of 2003 Appeal (crl.) 672-674 of 2003 PETITIONER: Goura Venkata Reddy RESPONDENT: State of Andhra Pradesh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/11\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; ARIJIT [&hellip;]<\/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-77607","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-25T04:11:38+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-25T04:11:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2156,\"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\\\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003\",\"name\":\"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-25T04:11:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-25T04:11:38+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-25T04:11:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003"},"wordCount":2156,"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\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003","name":"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-25T04:11:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/goura-venkata-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-19-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Goura Venkata Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 November, 2003"}]},{"@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\/77607","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=77607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77607\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}