Dismissed

Morturu Sudha Laxmi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2022CRLP/2432/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition by wife of deceased seeking admission of compact disks (news report/interview) as evidence in a Section 306 IPC case. Court upheld Trial Court view that proper procedure is to summon competent person to produce material.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner may file petition through public prosecutor to summon competent person for production of broadcast material.

Morturu Sudha Laxmi Vs the State of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2432 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner herein is the wife of the deceased person whose death was registered as a Crime for offences under Sections 306, 509 read with 109 of Indian Penal Code and a charge sheet was filed subsequently.

¶4

In the course of the trial the petitioner, who was the de facto- complainant, had filed an application bearing Crl.M.P.No.177 of 2018 in S.C.No.152 of 2015 before the Trial Court, through the Public Prosecutor, for the Trial Court to receive two compact disks regarding telecast of the news of the death of the deceased in TV9 news channel and interview of the DSP about the death of the deceased. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 18.11.2020.

¶5

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

¶6

Sri T.V.Sri Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the said compact disks are essential to prove the case against the accused in the said case as the news report of the said time would clearly make

¶7

¶8

out a case against the accused having abetted in the suicide of her husband.

¶9

A perusal of the order shows that the Trial Court had taken the view that the appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to have filed a petition to summon the competent person who could produce the material before the Trial Court and by taking steps to secure the originals or the recording made simultaneously during the live telecast.

¶10

This Court does not find any reason to differ with the view of the Trial Court in this regard. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, it would always be open to the de facto- complainant, petitioner herein to file a petition, through the public prosecutor for summoning the original of the broadcast of TV9 from a person authorized to produce the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶13

21.11.2022 RKS

¶14

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2432 of 2022

¶17

21.11.2022

¶18

RKS

Morturu Sudha Laxmi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Morturu Sudha Laxmi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadali Lakshmi Naga Venkata Ramana Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Thummala Swathi Sayamala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nakka Surya Kumari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.K.Aruna Vs State SHO

Kunuru Eswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Cheepulla Seetharam Vs State SHO of Arilova Ps Visakhapatnam City