Dismissed

Islavath Venkatesh Naik v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2023CRLP/5100/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C against an order rejecting a request for local inspection of the scene of occurrence. The court held that the lower judge correctly dismissed the application as it amounted to collection of evidence rather than appreciation of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition No.5100 of 2018 is dismissed and pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Islavath Venkatesh Naik Vs The State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER / TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE j|

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5100 OF 2018

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Islavath Venkatesh Naik, S/o. Islavath Pedda Thulasi @ Papaiah @ I. Ramudu Naik, aged 24 years, R/o. Ayyavaripalli Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapur District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶7

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶8

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶9

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the order dt.06-04-2018 in Crl.M.P.No.35 of 2018 in S.C.No.533 of 2016 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, Anantapur District.

¶10

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2018

¶11

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in S.C.No.533 of 2016 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, Anantapur District including appearance of the Petitioner, pending disposal of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case.

¶12

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KATA SAMBASIVA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent.

¶13

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶14

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5100 OF 2018

¶18

.ORDER;

¶19

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.35 of 2018 in S.C.No.533 of 2016 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, Gooty was filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 310(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the Court to visit and inspect the scene of occurrence^forthe purpose of properly appreciating the evidence on the ground that there is no possibility to come down from the sky light (Gavachi) into the room. Hence, he made an application to visit and inspect the scene of occurrence.

¶20

The learned Judge has dismissed the said application by an order dated 06.04.2018^ Inter-alia observing that the present application has been filed after closure of^{theevidenceof} prosecution and also D.W. 1 also examined and there^isnosuch pleading in the petition in spite of cross-examination^ofP.Wsand placing defense evidence, on what aspect the inspection^ofthis Court is necessary for appreciating the evidence placed^before this Court. The Court below has rejected the request^for local inspection because it is not necessary to comprehend the

¶21

¶22

\ \

¶23

evidence and eventually dismissed the application for local inspection 3. It is the contention raised in the petition for local inspection is that basing on the statement given by^thevictim: the victim has stated in the following:

¶24

“closed the two varandhas and entered through skylight(rt<iy’0) and poured the kerosene on me”.

¶25

It is the contention of the accused that there is no possibility enter through skylight(rt(iy^). Hence, filed an application for local inspection.

¶26

The purpose of inspection is to appreciate the evidence,^is not the purpose of collection of evidence. And the application. which was filed amounts to collection of evidence. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application for^whatever reason.

¶27

Therefore, the Court found no reasons to interdict with the order passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, Gooty.

¶28

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^inthis

¶33

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶34

SD/- M. SRINIVAS

¶35

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY// C SECTIO FFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur at Gooty, Anantapur District. 2. One CC to Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. Three C.D Copies.

SSL

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/12/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.5100 OF 2018

CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED

Islavath Venkatesh Naik v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Islavath Venkatesh Naik 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Jayasree Vs State of Ap

Seelam Bala Raju Vs Seelam Durga Surya Kumari

A. Siva Rami Reddy, S/o. a.Siva Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Eda Suresh Lal Vs Neetal John Ratnam

B.Nanda Kishore Vs State of Ap

A.Varalakshmi Vs State of Ap