Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos.1228, 1345 of 2020
Decided on : 07-03-2022
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure - 231, 311 - The court allowed the prosecution's application under Section 231 of the Cr.P.C. to receive a receipt dated 26.04.2011 and under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall a witness for marking photographs and CD. The court held that the receipt was crucial evidence and could be filed at any stage, and the witness could be recalled to mark the documents. The court quashed the lower court's orders dismissing the applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the de facto complainant, filed two criminal petitions against the lower court's orders dismissing the prosecution's applications under Section 231 and 311 of the Cr.P.C. to receive a receipt and recall a witness for marking documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the receipt and the documents were crucial pieces of evidence and could be filed/recalled at any stage, and the lower court erred in dismissing the applications.
Issues: The issues involved the admissibility of crucial evidence and the court's power to allow the filing/recalling of evidence at any stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that crucial evidence could be filed at any stage and a witness could be recalled to mark documents, and the lower court erred in dismissing the applications.
Final Decision: Both criminal petitions were allowed, and the lower court's orders were quashed. The prosecution's applications to receive the receipt and recall the witness for marking documents were allowed, and the lower court was directed to issue summons for marking the documents and dispose of the case expeditiously.
ORDER :
Criminal Petition No.1228 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner - de facto complainant under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in Crl.M.P. No.544 of 2018 in S.C. No.777 of 2013, while Criminal Petition No.1345 of 2020 is filed against the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the very same Court in Crl.M.P. No.820 of 2018 in the said S.C.
2. Heard Mr. Moshe Marpur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E. Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 to 7 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State in both the petitions, and perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein is the de facto complainant (PW.1) in S.C. No.777 of 2013. He is the father of the deceased. The offence alleged against respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein - accused Nos.1 to 6 is under Section - 304B of IPC.
4. In the said Sessions Case, prosecution has filed an application vide Crl.M.P. No.544 of 2018 under Section - 231 of the Cr.P.C. to receive the original receipt, dated 26.04.2011. Whereas, the prosecution filed another application vide Crl.M.P. No.820 of 2018 under Section - 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking documents, such as photographs along with Compact Discs. Both the applications were dismissed by the Court below vide orders both dated 17.01.2020. Challenging the same, the de facto complainant filed these petitions.
5. Crl.P. No.1228 of 2020
ii) It is further contended that PW.1, the father of the deceased, could not trace out the said receipt and, therefore, he has not mentioned the said fact in his statement recorded under Section - 161 of the Cr.P.C. and in his deposition as PW.1 in the said S.C. On tracing out the said original receipt, he had handed over it to the Investigating Officer, who in turn filed Crl.M.P. No.544 of 2018 to receive the said original receipt dated 26.04.2011. The same was resisted by respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein - accused Nos.1 to 6. The Court below vide order dated 17.01.2020 dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner herein - de facto complainant (PW.1) did not mention or state about the said receipt dated 26.04.20211 either in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. or in his deposition as PW.1. He has not even mentioned the date on which the alleged receipt was traced out. The petitioner is silent in that regard.
iii) There is no dispute that the petitioner herein - the de facto complainant (PW.1), father of the deceased, has not stated about the receipt dated 26.04.2011 either in his statement recorded under Section - 161 of the Cr.P.C. or in his deposition as PW.1 in S.C. No.777 of 2013. Even he has not mentioned the date on which the said receipt was traced out in the petition filed under Section - 231 of the Cr.P.C. But, perusal of the said receipt would reveal that there is specific mention about the payment of Rs.7,50,000/- on two different dates towards the marriage expenses duly signed by the relatives of both sides. According to the petitioner herein, the said amount was paid towards dowry and respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein have received the same. Their signatures are also there in the said receipt proof of the receip
The power under Section 311 CrPC should be exercised for the just decision of the case, and the evidence sought to be adduced must be essential, requiring judicial discretion.
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 t....
The court affirmed that fair trial rights necessitate allowing re-examination of witnesses to ensure all relevant evidence is presented for a just decision, stressing judicious use of discretion unde....
Accused incheque dishonor cases must be allowed fair opportunities to challenge complaints, including recalling witnesses and obtaining documents, to effectively rebut statutory presumptions.
Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall allowed for post-settlement evidence verification if genuine, despite delay.
Preventing the accused from producing relevant documents amounts to a miscarriage of justice and denies the principles of fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
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
