30 Important Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgments Of 2025

1.Investigating Officer Must Be Given 'Free-Hand' While Probing Case Involving Serious Allegations: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Pvhv Gopala Sarma v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 25The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that in a case containing serious allegations, the Investigating Officer (IO) deserves a free hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao further observed that,“The investigating officer, who has been prevented from subjecting the petitioner to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful in finding prima facie substance in the grave allegations. The possibility of the investigation being effected once the petitioner is released on bail is very much foreseen. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.”2. Andhra Pradesh High Court Lays Down Parameters For Disputing Negligence In Motor Vehicle Accident Claims CasesCase Title: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR v. JYOTHI PERAIAH Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 30A Single Judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, while dealing with an appeal contesting the sustainability of an award and decree passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole, laid down certain advisory parameters to be followed in Motor Vehicle Accident claims cases while disputing negligence. The Court directed that in such cases-“There must be denial.There must be some evidence at least by the parties.There must be at least oath against oath and tested by cross-examination.Examination of eye witnesses reflected in charge sheet filed by Police is preferable. However, the same cannot be the thumb role, if the presence of such witnesses examined is probable at the scene of offence, at relevant time.The driver of the offending vehicle, if takes witness stand and denies the negligence, it will have its own importance, at least in cases of contributory negligence.In cases of serious disputes as to planting of either witnesses or vehicles, summoning the investigating officers and eliciting the probabilities or improbabilities will have considerable impact.The rough sketch of scene of offence and Motor Vehicles Inspector Report indicating the damage to the vehicles etc., will have its own effect to vindicate the stand of the parties.However, no stick jacket and standard formula is possible and each matter has to be considered on its own merits and facts and circumstances including the relevant and reliable evidence placed before this Court.Finally the Tribunal shall have holistic view of the matter.“3. Daughter-In-Law Integral Part Of Family, Entitled To Compassionate Appointment: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Smt. K. Hamakshi v. State of Andhra PradeshCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 34The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is an integral part of the family and is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.The Court further noted that while the government recognises a son or daughter of the deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, the daughter-in-law, despite not being traditionally classified as family, should also be extended the same benefit.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed:“After a daughter gets married, she becomes an integral part of the family she joins. Conversely, the daughter-in-law, who enters the family, becomes a vital member and has a more substantial right to request compassionate appointments to ensure the welfare of her children.”4. Separate Identification Parade Not Required If Accused Is Identified In Court By Prosecution Witnesses: Andhra Pradesh High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Vemagiri Raju @ Yesu, E.g.dt. v. The State Of Andhra PradeshCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 35The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that if an accused person is identified by the prosecution witnesses before the Court, no separate identification parade is required.Justice V. Srinivas made the observation while partly allowing a man's Criminal Revision plea challenging his conviction for causing death by negligence (under Section 304-A IPC) and one year sentence along with fine. In doing so the court modified the sentence imposed to six months instead of one year.Referring to various Supreme Court pronouncements on this issue, the high court said:"The said contention has no legs to stand in view of the categorical observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dana Yadav (referred to supra) by referring its earlier pronouncements in Dharamvir v. State of M.P., Mehtab Singh v. State of M.P. and Sajjan Singh v. Emperor that “if an accused person is already well known to the witnesses, an identification parade would, of course, be only a waste of time.”5. Loading, Maintenance And Pay Loader Workers Not Short Period Employments, Entitled To...

30 Important Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgments Of 2025

Saahas Arora

Tags