Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(AP) 1012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NINALA JAYASURYA, J.
T.S. Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.4224 of 2022
Decided on : 28-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.P.S.P.Suresh Kumar

The discretion to allow the filing of additional evidence, such as the CDR, under Section 311 Cr.P.C should be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.

Headnote:
CDR - Criminal Trial - Indian Penal Code - Section 120-B, Section 302 R/w Section 34 - Section 311 Cr.P.C - Section 173(5) Cr.P.C - Section 207 Cr.P.C - Section 65-B(4)(c) of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 - Section 482 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to quash an order allowing the filing of Call Data Record (CDR) in a criminal trial for offenses under Section 120-B and Section 302 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The CDR was considered essential for the just decision of the case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the CDR was essential for a just decision and that the discretion exercised by the Learned Sessions Judge in allowing the filing of the CDR was not perverse or irregular.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of the CDR, the timing of its filing, and its relevance to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the CDR was essential for a just decision and that the discretion exercised by the Learned Sessions Judge in allowing the filing of the CDR was not perverse or irregular.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were closed.

ORDER :

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the Order dated 13.06.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.497 of 2022 in S.C.No.398 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

2. The petitioners herein are Accused Nos.1 & 2, facing Criminal Trial for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

The Police, Bangarupalem Police Station, laid a Charge Sheet against the petitioners, the contents of which, in brief are as follows:-

The deceased married A.2 about 12 years back and blessed with two sons. A.2 is running a Supplier Shop at Cherlopalli Village, Chittoor Mandal, in the name and style of “Srikrishna Suppliers”, whereas, A.1 is running a Clinic in the Shop belongs to L.W.7, situated near to the Suppliers Shop of A.2. A.1 & A.2 developed illegal sexual intimacy A.1 was using Mobile Nos.9395361267 & 9701873637 and A.2 was using Mobile No.7680041244. They frequently contact over Mobile and now and then visited Lodges by posing themselves as “husband” and “wife”. They took a room in R.R Residency Hotel, Kattamanchi, Chittoor on 02.09.2017 and 28.02.2018 by posing themselves as “husband” and “wife” and gave their Adhar Cards as I.D proof to the Lodge Managers i.e., L.Ws 8 & 9. The deceased came to know the same through his mother (L.W.10), warned A.1 to discontinue his illegal relationship with A.2. When, A.1 not cared the warning of the deceased and continued his illegal intimacy with A.2, the deceased went to the house of A.1, informed to the wife of A.1 about the illegal intimacy between A.1 & A.2 and requested her to control A.1 and the same was witnessed by L.Ws 11 & 12. This lead the accused to bore grudge against the deceased, conspired together, hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and waiting for an opportunity.

While so, on 11.05.2018, the deceased along with A.2 and their children went to the house of his younger sister at Beripalli Village of Bangarupalem Mandal, A.2 contacted A.1 over phone and asked to execute their plan to kill the deceased with a vehicle so as to create the death occurred in a road accident. In pursuance of their conspiracy, on 12.05.2018 A.1 took one Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.AP 03 BB 6107 of L.W.6, on the pretext of test drive, purchased a water bottle from the petty shop of L.W.13, waited by parking the vehicle on Mittapalli-Nunegundlapalli road side, near Nunegundlu area, Bangarupalem Mandal, covering his face by wearing helmet and the same was witnessed by L.Ws 4 & 14. At about 1.00 p.m, the deceased alone left Beripalli Village on his Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration No.AP 03 BB 6107 to go to Cherlopalli Village and A.2 passed the above information over phone to A.1 and alerted him. When the deceased alone was proceeding towards Cherlopalli Village on his motor cycle, A.1 moved Tata Sumo vehicle from the above mentioned place, drove it in high speed on Mittapalli-Nunegundlapalli road and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased near Noonegundu Area, Noonegundlapalle Village, Bangaruplame Mandal, with an intention to kill him, though the deceased was passing on the extreme left side of the road, dragged him to a distance of about 40 feet on the road and killed him on the spot.

Initially L.W.29 conducted the investigation, which was later on taken up by L.W.30, who recorded the statements of L.Ws 8 & 9 i.e., Managers of R.R. Residency/Lodge, seized blood stained clothes of the deceased in Bangarupalem Police Station, seized the Arrival Registers of the Lodge etc, recorded the statements of independent witnesses i.e., L.Ws 10 to 14 and the Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel Limited, Hyderabad (L.W.26) furnished the Call Data Record (CDR) pertaining to the Mobile Numbers of A.1 i.e., 9395361267 & 9701873637 and A.2 i.e., 7680041244 and also Customer Application Forms of the above mobile numbers under Section 65-B(4)(c) of Indian Evidence Act, 1972, which disclosed th