Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Telugu Jyothi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision Case Nos. 385, 388, 389 of 2024
Decided On : 25-09-2024
Criminal - Revision - Cr.P.C. Sections 397, 401, 311, 225 - The court discussed the admissibility of evidence, particularly hearsay and secondary evidence, and the procedural propriety of the trial court's refusal to accept new evidence, ultimately affirming the trial court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to introduce new evidence in a murder trial, claiming it was crucial for proving the accused's guilt. The trial court dismissed the petitions for reopening the case and accepting the evidence, citing issues of admissibility and procedural irregularities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's dismissal of the petitions was justified, as the proposed evidence was deemed inadmissible hearsay and lacked necessary details for it to be considered primary evidence.
Issues: Whether the trial court's orders were incorrect or illegal, and whether the orders were interlocutory or intermediary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's refusal to accept the evidence was based on sound legal principles regarding admissibility and procedural propriety, and that the orders were interlocutory, thus not subject to revision.
Result: All Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed, confirming the trial court's order.
ORDER :
1. These Criminal Revision Cases filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) impugning the common order dated 04.04.2024 in Crl. M.P. Nos. 382, 383 and 426 of 2024 in S.C. No. 1 of 2021 of the learned Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases relating to Elected M.Ps and M.L.As. of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada.
2. Heard arguments of Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G. Venkata Sailendra for revision petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri P.Uma Maheswararao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Varun Byreddy, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 6 and Sri Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1/State.
3. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cited:
1. Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P. 2018 SCC Online All 3772
2. Rekha Murarka Vs. State of West Bengal, Crl. Appeal No. 1727 of 2019
3. Varsha Garg Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 986
4. Mina Lalita Baruwa Vs. State of Orrissa, (2013) 16 SCC 173
5. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158
6. Dinesh Vs. The State Through Narona Police Station, Crl. Pet. No. 200181 of 2021
7. Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State of U.P. Application under Section 482 No. 12409 of 2022
4. Learned counsel for respondent/accused cited:
1. Sedam Govindu Vs. ........1958 (1) ALT 154
2. Girish Kumar Sunela Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 14 SCC 809
3. Satyajit Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal, (2005) 1 SCC 115
4. Seethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State cited:
Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2023 INSC 786
5. The brief facts of the case are:
(ii) PW-31 believed this to be a crucial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. So, she approached the Additional Public Prosecutor concerned and applied to all the superior police officers for production of this evidence in the court but found no positive response from them.
(iii) In such circumstances, she herself filed petitions before the trial court for reception of the evidence, for re-opening the case and recalling her as a witness. Initially, trial court refused to entertain them on the premise that in a State held prosecution a witness had no legal competence to make such prayers.
(iv) Aggrieved by that, the petitioner/PW-31 filed a Criminal Petition No. 1368 of 2024 before this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to direct the Special Court to receive the recall and reopen petitions under Section 311 of Cr.P.C in S.C. No. 1 of 2021. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of Criminal Petition No. 1368 of 2024 on 18.03.2024 by directing the Special Court to decide the petitions filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C and not to deliver the judgment in S.C. No. 1 of 2021 till the disposal of the petitions filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
(v) Thereafter, the Special Court entertained Crl. M.P. Nos. 382 and 383 of 2024 seeking recall of petitioner/PW-31 and to reopen the cases filed on 19.03.2024 and Crl. M.P. No. 426 of 2024 to receive the additional do
The admissibility of evidence is critical in criminal proceedings, and hearsay evidence cannot be accepted without proper substantiation.
Orders under Section 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory and revisions against such orders are not maintainable, affirming the court's power to allow subsequent applications to ensure justice.
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. allows courts to recall witnesses essential for a just decision, emphasizing that oversights in prosecution do not constitute irreparable lacunae. Judicial discretion must ....
Criminal Revision - Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powe....
The court emphasized the necessity of recalling witnesses to ensure a fair trial and prevent failure of justice.
The appellate court has the authority to admit additional evidence but must do so according to procedural law, ensuring fairness and compliance with defined legal requirements.
The court established that the rejection of a application to examine a material witness is revisable when its outcome could terminate proceedings, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evidence in t....
Electronic evidence inadmissible under Section 319 CrPC without Section 65B certificate; summoning based solely on trial-recorded admissible evidence showing prima facie conviction case if unrebutted....
The public prosecutor must independently assess the legitimacy of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C, ensuring it serves public justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
