Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1094
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J.
Syed Zaki Hussaiin Razvi - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and Another - Respondent
Crl. Pet. No. 9446 of 2024
Decided On : 03-09-2024
For the Appellant : Y. Koteswar Rao
For the Respondent: Arun Kumar Doddla
The Court clarified that civil evidence is not admissible in criminal cases due to differing standards of proof and that findings in one type of proceeding do not bind the other.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - No specific sections cited - The essence of the differentiation between civil and criminal proceedings was highlighted, emphasizing that civil cases are decided based on preponderance of evidence while criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Paragraph 5)
(B) Evidence - The court considered the implications of admitting certain exhibits from a civil case into a criminal proceeding, noting that neither statutory provision nor legal principle supports binding findings between the two. (Paragraph 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the admission of exhibits P.17 and P.18 in a criminal case despite the complainant's affidavit requesting their exclusion. The First Appellate Court had dismissed the petitioner's objections.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that civil and criminal proceedings operate under different evidentiary standards and thus ruled in favor of the petitioner to exclude said exhibits.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the admissibility of civil evidence in criminal proceedings and the discrepancies in standards of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that findings in civil proceedings are not binding on criminal cases, reaffirming the distinct nature of burdens of proof in both types of law.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal petition filed to challenge prior ruling. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. objections on the marking of exhibits p.17 and p.18. (Para 4) |
| 3. distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court allows petition and sets aside previous order. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 to set aside the order dated 06.07.2024 passed in Crl.R.P. No.121 of 2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offences-Cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge- Cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’).
2. The brief facts of the case are that although the petitioner raised objections for marking of Exs.P.17 and 18 while examining PW.1, the trial Court overruled the objections and marked the Exs.P.17 and P.18 in C.C.No.199 of 2018. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P. No.121 of 2023 before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed on 06.07.2024. Hence, the present Criminal Petition.
3. Heard Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite filing of affidavit by the complainant stating that she is not pressing for marking of Exs.P.17 and P.18, without considering the same, the First Appellate Court dismissed the Crl.R.P. He further submitted that Exs.P.17 and P.18 cannot be marked before the Criminal Court as the proceedings under the Civil Court are different from the proceedings under the Criminal Court. Hence, he prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition setting aside the order dated 06.07.2024.
5. As seen from the record, the prosecution filed the affidavit of PW.1 in C.C.No.199 of 2018 stating that during the course of chief examination certain additional documents, which were filed in civil case of the petitioner, were got marked as Exs.P.17 and P.18. It is noteworthy that civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, while in a criminal case, the entire burden lies on the prosecution, and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given and also there is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.
6. Pertinently, there is no binding nature of the proceedings between the civil case and the criminal case and also the proceedings in both the civil and criminal cases are different. That apart respondent No.2 filed affidavit in the First Appellate Court to exclude Exs.P.17 and P.18. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 06.07.2024 in Crl.R.P.No.121 of 2023. Further, the objections raised by the petitioner herein for marking Exs.P.17 and 18 are sustained.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions is allowed by setting aside the order dated 06.07.2024 passed in Crl.R.P.No.121 of 2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offences-Cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
