ORDER:

1. This revision filed by the State as well as the de facto complainant under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC arose out of the following circumstances.

2. Sri N.Ram Mohan Rao does business in the name and style of Rao & Murthy Plywoods at Sivalayam Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada. He has a son by name Sri N. Bala Chandan. Every day, Sri Ram Mohan Rao used to leave his house in the morning and do his business and returned home by about 9:15 pm in the night. On 28.09.2013 as usual, he went to the shop but did not return in the night. The son and family members enquired with the relations and friends but did not locate him. Therefore, they went to the Governorpet Police Station and the son lodged a written information at 11.00 am on 29.03.2013. This written information states that Sri Ram Mohan Rao was missing and prayed to search for him. The Sub- Inspector of Police of Governorpet Pollice Station registered it as FIR.No.335 of 2013 as a case of “missing person”. No penal provision is mentioned in it.

3. The de facto complainant in the said FIR is the son of the missing person. It is further seen from the records that this de facto complainant during morning hours on 30.09.2013 found bad smell coming from the southern side property of the neighbour’s house and found people talking to each other about a dead body. Then he and his family members went there and found from the dress worn by the dead body that it was the dead body of Sri Ram Mohan Rao. The son rushed to Governorpet Police Station and gave a detailed written information wherein he mentioned that he found the dead body with a plaster around the head thereby closing the face. He expressed his suspicion that unknown people should have taken him away and killed him and threw the dead body. He further disclosed his suspicion that with reference to some immovable property of them in Kankipadu, there were some disputes with certain people and therefore out of that or for the other reasons his father might have been murdered. The Inspector of Governorpet Police Station having received the information, at 9.00 am on 30.09.2013 altered the man missing FIR into and brought in Sections 302 and 201 IPC. It seems on the point of jurisdiction, the records were transferred to Suryaraopet Police Station. The police duly conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate which was thereafter committed to the court of sessions and it became S.C.No.14 of 2016. Learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada charged the accused and commenced the trial. The de facto complainant testified as PW.1. On 22.07.2019, prosecution examined him in chief in part. During this phase, the written information initially lodged by PW.1 and was registered as FIR as a case of “missing man” was marked as per Ex.P1. In his evidence, he spoke about missing of gold ornaments from the dead body of his father. It seems in the investigation, they were recovered and they were exhibited as MO.1 and MO.2. Further examination in chief was deferred to another day. The witness was tendered for continuation of evidence on 23.07.2019. During this phase of evidence, the wearing apparel of the deceased and two mobile phones were exhibited as MO.3 to MO6. It was at this stage, the facts relevant for the present revision have occurred.

4. Through PW.1, prosecution intended to exhibit the written information dated 30.09.2013 lodged by PW.1 to police. As one could see from the deposition form of this witness, the court on its own mention took an objection to mark this document as an exhibit for prosecution and refused to mark it. The reason recorded by the learned trial judge is that Ex.P1 was already marked. The proposed document is after it and therefore it was hit by sections 161 and 162 CrPC and therefore it could not be exhibited as evidence.

5. Aggrieved by that refusal, the prosecution preferred this revision. Though initially prosecution filed the revision, the de fac