Trial commences upon framing charges; powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised before evidence is recorded.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the petitioner/respondent No.8/proposed party assailing the order dated 21.02.2023 of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram in Crl.M.P.No.892 of 2022 in S.C.No.102 of 2021.

2. Heard arguments of Sri M.Sreerama Rao, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri K.Pridhvi Raju, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/de facto complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-State.

3. Brief facts of the case are required to be noticed:

The marriage between Sri G.Rajkapoor and Smt. Kumari was solemnized on 20.05.2015. In her matrimonial house the married woman suffered an unnatural death on 26.11.2017. Thereupon her mother/respondent No.1 alleging that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty lodged a written information on 27.11.2017 which was registered as Crime No.179 of 2017 of Jaggampeta Police Station. After due investigation, citing 25 witnesses the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram for the offences punishable under Section 304B read with 34 I.P.C. A.1 to A.7 are shown as accused. A.4 therein is Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi. He is elder brother to the husband of the deceased lady. This G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi mentioned in Sl.No.4 in the charge sheet has not been sent up for trial. The investigation officer recorded that on recording the statements of witnesses/LW.13 to LW.17 he found no case against Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi. In the charge sheet he made a mention that he informed the situation to his superiors and obtained orders dated 25.12.2018 permitting him to drop the case against Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi.

The learned Magistrate summoned rest of the accused, furnished them with copies of documents and in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The case was registered as S.C.No.102 of 2021 and was placed for consideration before the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. He took cognizance in terms of Section 193 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, he framed charges against the accused and adjourned the matter to fix up dates for trial schedule. It was thereafter that the de facto complainant filed a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was also signed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor of the Additional Sessions Court. That petition was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to add the omitted accused and try him along with other accused.

In the said petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the de facto complainant alleged that the name of Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi was there in the F.I.R. and was there in the statements of witnesses and his omission in the charge sheet is an error on part of investigation agency and therefore, he should be added as one of the accused to be tried along with other accused. Learned Additional Sessions Court served a notice on Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi. He appeared and filed a counter resisting the claim. After due hearing, by an order dated 21.02.2023 the learned Additional Sessions Court allowed the petition and thereby it directed Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi to stand up for trial. It is stated that on 16.03.2023 the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against this newly added accused by name Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi.

4. In this revision the newly added accused Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi impugned the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.892 of 2022 in S.C.No.102 of 2021 assailing it as illegal in terms of the stage of the case where such decision was taken.

5. The point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether a Sessions Court is entitled to invoke powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after framing of charges and before commencement of recording of evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses?

POINT:

6. Since