Dismissed

Vanga Sunil Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Feb 2012CRLRC/152/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding Section 376 IPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the trial court's order recalling a medical witness (PW9) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to mark her final opinion pending receipt of the FSL report.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision case dismissed; petitioner at liberty to examine PW9 if final opinion is marked through recall.

Vanga Sunil Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

CRL.R.C.No.152 of 2012

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 4-1-2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.955 of 2011 in S.C.No.584 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C and recalled PW9-Dr.A.Swarupa Rani, for further chief-examination.

¶5

The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.584 of 2010. He is being tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The prosecution examined the doctor as PW9 on 6-9-2011. Before closure of the prosecution evidence, an application has been moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall PW9 for marking final opinion after receipt of the FSL report. The petitioner-accused resisted the said application on the ground that the final opinion has not been received by the Court along with charge sheet and therefore, it cannot be marked by summoning PW9. The learned Sessions Judge on considering the material brought ton record and on hearing the learned

¶6

counsel appearing for the parties proceeded to allow Crl.M.P.No.955 of 2011 and permitted the prosecution to recall PW9 for the purpose of marking final opinion given by her. The said order is assailed in the revision.

¶7

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the document which is not filed along with the charge sheet cannot be pressed into service by the prosecution at a later stage. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Puligada Pitcheswara Rao vs. State of A.P .^[1]

¶9

The petitioner is being tried for the offence under Section 376 IPC. PW9 examined the victim girl and issued preliminary examination report reserving her final opinion pending receipt of the FSL report. After receipt of FSL report, she has given final opinion. At the time of examination of PW9, her final report has not been marked. For the purpose of marking final report, prosecution moved Crl.M.P.No.955 of 2011 for recall of PW9.

¶10

It is a matter of record, the prosecution moved the application to recall PW9 before closure of its evidence. The preliminary report has already been marked as

¶11

Ex.P9. PW9 reserved her final opinion pending receipt of the FSL report. After receipt of the FSL report, she issued final report dated 14-9-2011. By the time of her examination as PW9, final report was not received. Therefore, she has to be necessarily recalled for expressing her final opinion. The trial Court is justified in allowing the application filed by the prosecution to recall PW9. This is not a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to examine PW9 in the event of the final opinion is marked through her recall.

¶13

__________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J

¶14

rkk Dated: 2-2-2012

¶15

[1] 21- ALD(crl)-1-270

Vanga Sunil Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanga Sunil Reddy, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Papana Balaraju , Balu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Medida Malyadri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E.Srinivas Vs Smt. M.Vijaya Kumari

Nagarajan Lakshmanan Vs The State of a.P., through Sho.

M.Surya Narayana Vs The state of Ap.,through Sho,Kphb Colony P.S.

Yerramreddy Chandra Shekar Reddy Vs The State of a.P., through SHO