THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.13330 and 13334 of 2025

ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/de facto complainant seeking to quash the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.178 and 179 of 2025 in S.C.No.98 of 2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, at Godavarikhani, dated 09.09.2025.

2. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution was able to locate the phone belonging to PW3, which could not be produced as evidence at the time of filing the charge sheet. Subsequently, the said phone was discovered, and the evidence ought to have been produced before the trial Court, as it is important and crucial to establish the offence against the accused. However, the trial Court dismissed the request, causing grave prejudice to the case of the de facto complainant. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set aside and that the prosecution be permitted to lead additional evidence.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted to pass appropriate orders.

5. Perused the record.

6. The offence charged against the accused is under Section 307 of the IPC. It is borne out from the record that the incriminating case property, namely the phone belonging to PW3, was not produced by the prosecution while adducing evidence in the first instance. Consequently, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 348 of the BNSS seeking to recall the evidence of PW3 and to receive the said mobile phone and mark it as a material object. However, the trial Court dismissed the said petition.

7. A perusal of the petition filed before the trial Court reveals that the petitioner contended that copies of the video clips had already been furnished by the complainant well in advance, and however, the mobile phone with which the said clips were recorded was not produced. It was further contended that marking the said material object is essential for a comprehensive adjudication of the matter. However, the trial Court failed to consider the same, assigning reasons that nothing was mentioned about the phone during the trial and that the subsequent production of the material object sought to be deposited by the prosecution would cause prejudice to the accused. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the petition.

8. It is pertinent to refer to Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) and the same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:_

Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C:- “allows the police to conduct a further investigation into an offense even after a final report (such as a chargesheet) has been submitted to the Magistrate. If new evidence is obtained during this further investigation, the police officer must submit a further report to the Magistrate, and the general provisions of Section 173 (including subsections 2 to 6) will apply to this new report. This provision was added to the 1973 Cr.P.C to provide a statutory basis for further investigation, addressing recommendations from the Law Commission.”

9. Thus, the statute envisages that prosecution can collect additional evidence and shall forward it to the Magistrate subsequently after filing the final report.

10. The prosecution can produce evidence even after filing the charge sheet whenever any new fact is discovered by the prosecution, provided that ample opportunity is given to the accused to cross-examine the said witness. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision in Sameer Sandhir Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein it was held that even though the documents do not form the part of the charge sheet, they can be produced before the trial Court in support of the prosecution case. In the said