Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K.Krupa Sagar, J.
Konatham Venkata Rama Lakshmaiah - Petitioner
Vs.
The State - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 519 of 2024
Decided On : 31-07-2024
Revision - Criminal Procedure - Cr.P.C. Sections 397, 401, 309 - The court emphasized the importance of a fair and expeditious trial, affirming that the accused had ample opportunity to present defense evidence but failed to do so, leading to the decision to allow one final opportunity under specific conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, charged with sexual offenses against a minor, failed to present defense evidence despite multiple opportunities granted by the trial court, leading to the closure of defense evidence and subsequent revision application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had provided sufficient opportunities for the accused to present his defense, and the delays were attributed to the accused's actions rather than a lack of opportunity.
Issues: Whether the trial court denied the accused a fair opportunity to present defense evidence and whether the revision application should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of a fair and expeditious trial must be upheld, and while the accused had delayed proceedings, a final opportunity to present evidence was warranted.
Result: The Criminal Revision Case is allowed with conditions for the accused to present defense evidence.
ORDER :
The sole accused in S.C.No.241 of 2019 pending before the learned Special Judge for speedy trial of offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada filed this Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) alleging that an opportunity be given to the revision petitioner/accused to lead evidence in defence during the trial of S.C.No.241 of 2019.
2. Sri Bhanu Prasad Chukkapalli, the learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted arguments.
3. Respondent is the State and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted arguments.
4. Perused the record.
5. Revision petitioner is stated to be a driver and aged about 30 years. The allegations are that he had forcible sex with a girl aged around 15 years and that was a repeated act on his part and all this occurred during the year 2015. The girl became pregnant. The offence was investigated into and charge sheet was laid. The competent Court framed necessary charges and recorded the evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter on 27.10.2013 the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the truth of the evidence and informed the Court that he would tender evidence in defence. On the appointed dates fixed for his evidence he did not lead his evidence and sought time and from time to time, the time was granted by the learned trial Court. Finally, on 15.02.2024, as he was not tendering his defence evidence, the learned trial Court closed the defence evidence and posted the matter to 08.04.2024 for hearing arguments. On 08.04.2024 he filed Crl.M.P.Nos.480 and 481 of 2024 seeking to reopen the evidence of defence and permit him to examine the witnesses. On 17.05.2024 the learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed those applications and permitted the accused to adduce evidence in defence and directed him to produce the evidence on 27.05.2024. It further recorded that if on that day the accused failed to adduce evidence, the petitions would stand dismissed.
6. It is undisputed that on 27.05.2024 the accused did not produce his evidence and therefore, the learned trial Court closed the evidence and listed the matter for hearing arguments on both sides. It is then the accused filed the present criminal revision case.
7. The grounds urged in the revision as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner are that because of the hot summer the revision petitioner could not produce evidence in defence on the appointed day. His further submission is that the trial Court granted several adjournments to the prosecution to produce its evidence, but enough time was not granted to the defence to produce evidence in defence. It is for these reasons the learned counsel urges this Court to permit the petitioner/accused to adduce evidence in defence.
8. As against it, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the submissions of revision petitioner are incorrect and it is not a case where opportunity to produce defence evidence was not granted by the trial Court and in fact the learned trial Court in accordance with law granted opportunity since 27.10.2023 and despite several adjournments, the accused instead of producing evidence in defence was simply dragging on the matter.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, it is to state here that the arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner do not comport well and they are against the mandate in Section 309 Cr.P.C. Fair trial and expeditious trial are the two fundamentals that a Criminal Court trying a case require to maintain and they are for the benefit of the accused. The minutes of the trial Court placed before this Court are verified and this Court is duly satisfied that learned trial Court granted several adjournments for the accused to adduce evidence. It seems that the accused instead of expeditiously participating in trial has been dodging the matter. The argument about the number o
A fair trial requires timely opportunities for both prosecution and defense, and courts must balance these to prevent undue delays.
The court affirmed that repeated opportunities to present defence witnesses must be utilized timely, and attempts to delay proceedings are not permissible.
The accused's right to summon defense witnesses is fundamental and must be upheld unless there are compelling reasons to deny such requests.
Failure to utilize opportunities to present defense evidence and the relevance of submitted documents influenced the court's decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the petitioner failed to present relevant documents at earlier stages of the trial, the court still allowed the revision petition and di....
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
