Allowed

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Mar 2022CRLP/1345/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a murder trial, the High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash orders dismissing prosecution applications to receive a marriage receipt and to recall a witness for marking newspaper photographs. The Court held that crucial evidence can be admitted later despite late revelation and that applications under Section 311 require a liberal approach at any stage of trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; orders dated 17.01.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.544/2018 and No.820/2018 quashed; Prosecution applications under Sec. 231 and 311 allowed; Court below directed to summon PW-1 and dispose of

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IUONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 1228 AND 1345 OF 2020

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1228 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao, S/o.Jalaiah, Age 53 Years, Occ. Govt.Servant (H.C. RPF), R/o, H.No. 30-2841 120/A, Santhoshima Nagar, Safilguda, Secundrabad, Telangana.

¶9

...Petitioner/ De-facto Complainant

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶12

2 t/r. Battula Shobhan Raju, S/o.late. Lakshmaiah, Age 27 Years, Occ. Software Engineer in lnfosys, R/o. H.No. 5-9715, Plot No.16, Shanthi Nagar Colony, Hydersha Kote Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶13

J Mr. Battula Krishna, S/o.late. Lakshmaiah, Age 40 Years, Occ. Pvt.Employee, R/o. H.No. 5-9715, Plot No.16, Shanthi Nagar Colony,Hydersha Kote Village, Rajendra Nagar [,4andal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶14

4 Mr. Battula Prabhakar, S/o.late. Lakshmaiah, Age 38 Years, Occ. Pvt.Employee, R/o. H.No. 5-9715, Plot No.16, Shanthi Nagar Colony, Hydersha Kote Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶15

5 Mr. Battula Lakshmi Narsimha, S/o.late. Lakshmaiah, Age 32^Years, Occ.^Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No. 5-97l5, Plot No.16, Shanthi Nagar^{Colony, Hydersha} Kote Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶16

6 Smt. N. Swarnalatha, W/o. Sridhar Chakravarthi, Age 34^{Years, Occ. House} Wife, R:/o. Shanthi Nagar, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶17

7 Smt. A.Suvarna Bai, W/o.A. Srinu, Age 34 Years, Occ.^{House Wife,} R/o.Gayathri Hills, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶18

... Respondents/Acc used No.1 to⁶

¶19

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the High Court may} be pleased to direct the court below ie., lV Additional^{MetropolitanSessions}

¶20

Judge, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga^{Reddy District to receive original receipt dated} 2610412011 in S.C. Nc.777 0l^{2013 as additional evidence, in the interestof} justice.

¶21

r.A. NO:1 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under^S ection 482 of^{Cr.P.Cprayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorar Cum^{of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be pleased to stall all further^{proceedingsin S.C. No.777 of 2013 on the file of} lV Additional Metropol tan Sessions^{Judge, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dtstrict} in the interest of^justic:.

¶23

l.A. NO: 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances} stated in the Memora rdum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be^pleased to^grant eave to the^{petitioner/defacto complainantto defend the} present petition befor: the Hon'ble Court in the interest of^justice.

¶25

. This Petition soming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^{Sri MOSHE} MARPU, Advocate^1)r the Petitioner and the Assistant^{Public Prosecutoron} behalf of the Respor dent No.1 and of M/s E.^{Sudhanshu Rao, Advocate for the} Respondent Nos.2 k 7.

¶26

cRl MINA^{L PETrTlo NNO : 1345OF2020}

¶27

Between: vt.Servant lvlr. Savalam^KoteswarR Safilguda' iii.c.^{-nFri' PJoH'No} %-?30,^{"','i??A,^g""f,f,} "If;^{f,l? R',"r'i"} becundrabad,^Telangana'

¶28

...Petitioner/^{De'facto Gomplainant}

¶29

ANDI . The^{State of Telangana'represented by its PublicProsecutor' High Court} ' euilOings, HYderabad

¶30

'U:r'-?rl{Fiiiiiffi Colonv, HVdersha^r #r"U,j,;1'*:,,'c##,1f{i:i;:,4'lll;'"' Districi,^{Telangana '}

¶31

'U,',11$:i!?!iiidil"Ji:'#x$;,c,,'f {ffi^{":s''#':TiBu::} Raiendra^NagarN4a

¶32

4 -Hf,Eilhift5"imil":i,liills:i:lm1:;:iillL)trsf'"Jrl'lo[/r. Battula^{Prabhakar' S/o late Lakshmaiah' Aoe38 Years'Occ'}

¶33

Telangana'

¶34

'Nt$Ntit:u{t#;iJs,"c"$'a'*$lij.,""11'"i;*u:?:#.

¶35

cc^{H o u se}

¶36

u ;,jl?: t^{:-sil:3,fi*; Hil,i!ilf, '-"A1TifXJ,r;ff.: +g ;3 :?}

¶37

u s e^{w ire'}

¶38

'^R[l #jiIfl^{'[1' 3lv} "Yl"''6^{;il lH'tS'? 3X'Y ?il;8 ji ;l}

¶39

No'1^{to 6}

¶40

"'ResPondents/Accused

¶41

Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr'P'Cprayingthat in the circumstances} stated^{in the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition'the High Court may} be^{pleased to quashthe order daled171112020in CrI MP'No'820 of 2018 in} SC.No.^{777 oI 2,)13to directingthe court below to recall PW-1 for the purpose of} marking^{the documents suchas photographs arong with cDs in S c' No'777of} 20'13^{on the file of the lV Additional Metropolitan SessionsJudge' at L'B Nagar'} Ranga^{Reddy Districtin the interestof iustice'}

¶42

LA. NO: 1OF 2020

¶43

Petition under S -.ction 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the Memoran lum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the High Courtmay} be^pleased to stay all f rrther^{proceedings in S.C, No.777 of 2013 on the file of lV} Additional Metropolitar Sessions Judge, at L,B. Nagar,^{Ranga ReCdy Districtin} the interest of^justice.

¶44

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶45

Petition under iection 482 of Cr.P.C^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorar dum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the High Courtmay} be^pleased to grant ?ave to the^petitioner/d efacto complainant to^{defend the} present petition before the Hon'ble Court in the interest of^justice.

¶46

This Petition c,^,ming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MOSHE MARPU, Advocate fr r the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respon lent No.1 and of Mis E. Sudhanshu Rao. Aclvocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7.

¶47

The Court made the ollowing: COMMON ORDER

¶48

HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE^K. LAKSHMAN

¶49

CRINIINAL PETITION^{Nos.1228AND 1345 0F 2020}

¶50

COMMON ORDEII:

¶51

Crimir.ral Petition^{No. 1228of 2020 is filed by the petitioner -} de facto compiainant^{under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal} Procedure, 1973^(for short 'Cr'P.C.')^{against the order dated} l7.Ol.2O2O passed by the^{IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions} Judge, Ranga Reddy^{Districtat L'B. Nagar in Crl'M'P' No'544 of} 2018 in S.C. No.777 of^{2013,whileCrininal Petition No'1345 of} 2020 is filed against^{the order dated 17.01.2020passedby the very} same Court in Crl.M.P.^{No.820of 2018 in the said S'C'}

¶52

Heard Mr.^{Moshe Marpur,learned counsel for the} petitioner, Mr. E. Sudhanshu^{Rao, leamed counselfor respondent} No.2 to 7 and learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutor appearingon} behalfofrespondent^{No'1 - Statein both the petitions, and perused} the record.

¶53

The^{petitionerherein is the de} facto^{complainant (PW'1)} in S.C. No.777 of 20i3.^{He is the father of the deceased'The}

¶54

KL.,t (1./ P. 'c.,s l2),9 ,* I 3a,; of la)O

¶55

offence alleped against respondent Nos.l to 7 herein - accused Nos. I to 6 is "urder Section - 3048 of IPC

¶56

Ir the said Sessions Case, prosecution has trled an application ride Crl.M.P. No.544 of 2018 under Section - 23 I of the Cr.P.C. to receive the original receipt, dated 26.04.2011. Whereas, th: prosecution filed another application vid,: Cll.M.P. No.820 of 2118 under Section - 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall PW. I for the purp )se of marking documents. such as photographs along with Compr ct Discs. Both the applications rvere distnissed by the Court belor vide orders both dated 17.01 .2020. Chalienging the same, the d, facto complainant filed these peritions.

¶57

C'1.P. No.1228 of 2020

¶58

i) the prosecutior.r llled Crl.M.P. No,544 of l0l8 under

¶59

Section - 2 i1 of the CrP.C. on the ground that PW.1, the father of the deceast d, had paid a sum ol Rs.5,00.000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) on 26.04.2011 in the presence of bridegroom and his relatives t lwards the maniage expenses as against the agreed amount of Rs.7,50'000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only). Tl e balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

¶60

KL.J Crl.P. Nos.l228 & lj45 of2020

¶61

and Fifty l-housand Only) would be given by 22.05.2011. According to the petitioner herein, the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was also paid to the briiiegroom and his relatives on the said date i.e.,22.05.20211.

¶62

ii) [t is flrther contended that PW.[, the father of the deceased, could not trace out the said receipt and, therefore, he has not lnentioned the said fact in his statement recorded under Section - l6l of the Cr.P.C. and in his deposition as PW.1 in the said S.C. On tracing out the said original receipt, he had handed over it to the Investigating Officer, who in turn filed Crl.M.P. No.544 of 2018 to receive the said original receipt dated 26.04.2011. The same was resisted by respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein - accused Nos.1 to 6. The Court below vide order dated 17.01.2020 dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner herein - de facto cornplainant (PW.1) did not mention or state about the said receipt dated 26.04.20211 either in his statement recorded under Section - 161 of the Cr.P.C. or in his deposition as PW.1. He has not even mentioned the date on which the alleged receipt was traced out. The petitioner is silent in that regard.

¶63

¶64

KL,J Crl.l.,'os.l2)9 & i 315 of2A20

¶65

iii) TI^:re is no dispute that the petitioncr herein - the r/e facto^{complanant (PW. I} ),^{fatberof the deceased,has rrot stated} about the rec, ipt dated26.04.20l I either in his statement recorded under Sectior - 161 of the Cr.P.C. or in his deposition as PW.1 in S.C. No.777 of 2013. Even he has not mentioned tl.re date on which the sz rd receipt was traced out in the petition filed under' Section - 23 of the Cr.P.C. But, perusal of the said receipt would reveal that there is specific mention about the payment of Rs.7,50.0001^. on two different dates towards the rnarriagc e\penses duly signed by the relatives of both sides. According to the petitioner h, rein, the said arnount was paid towarcls dorvry and respondent \os.2 to 7 herein have received the sanre. Their signatures a^'e also there in tl.re said receipt proof of the receipt of the said am( unt.

¶66

iv) r.s stated above, the offence alleged against respondent Nos.2 to 7 - accused Nos.l to 6 is under Section - 3048 of IpC. Burden lier^'on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond rea;onable doubt. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the said rer eipt dated 26.04.2011 is a crucial piece of evidence and

¶67

KL,J CrL P. Nos.1228 & I 345 of 2020

¶68

at any stage the same can be filed. Just because the petitioner herein did not refer about the same either in his statement recorded under Section - l6l of the Cr.P.C. or in his deposition as pW.l, he cannot be denied of filing such document which is a crucial piece of evidence to decide the /rs in the matter. Therefore, the Court below erred in dismissing Crl.M.P. No.544 of 2018 filed by the prosecution. Though in the present petition, there is no challenge to the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 in Crl.M.P. No.544 of 2018, this Coufi is having power to grant relief which is not sought by the petitioner in invocation of its inherent power under Section - 482 of the CI.P.C. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 17 .01.2020 passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P. No.544 of 2018 in S.C. No.777 of 2013 is liable to be quashed.

¶69

6. Crl.P. No.1 345 of2020

¶70

i) Originally, the prosecution had filed an application vide Crl.M.P. No.20l of 2017 under Section - 23 I of the Cr.P.C. to receive the photographs along rvith Compact Disk, and the same was allowed by the Court below subject to proof and relevancy vide order dated 20.02.2018. In the said order, it is also

¶71

¶72

KL'J Crl.l'. Nos.l228 &^{l3a5 o[202t)}

¶73

specifically m€^{ntionedthat if respondentNos'2 to 7 - accused} Nos.l to 6 har:^{got any objection over the said documents,they} are at liberty t,^r raise^{their objections beforethe Courl when they} are admitted^.s evidence.^{The prosecutionhas filed Crl'M'P'} No.820 of 2018 under Section^{- 311 of the Cr.P.C.to recallPW'l} for the purpore of^{marking the said documentsv2., photographs} and the Comp rct Disk^{in view of allowingthe said Crl,M.l'].No'201} of 2017.^{</sup> ide^{order dated17.01'2020, the Court below has} dismissed Crl M.P.^{No.820 of 2018 on the ground that the purpose} of recalling I W.l^{is to mark the photographsalong with CD,and} there is no dispute that the^{said photographsare taken from} Television E roadcast tn^{Zee News and TV9 News' The said} photographs are not originals and as such, the^{same are} inadmissible in evidence.^{The said photographswere generated} from a New^, item regarding^{the death ofthe deceasedtelecastedin} the News⁽ hannel. On the said^{grounds, the Court below has} dismissed he said application.^{Challenging the same' the} petitioner - he de facto cornplainant^{(PW. I} )^f rled this^petition.}

¶74

E--_

¶75

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.l ?26 & I 345 ol 2020

¶76

¶77

ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the irnpugned order is contrary to the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the very same Court in Crl.M.P. No.20 i of 2017 .

¶78

iii) It is settled law that Court while dealing with an application under Section - 31 1 of the Cr.P.C. has to adapt liberal approach. At any stage, a document which is relevant can be filed and marked by the parties. The Court while dealing with an application under Section - 311 of the Cr.P.C., has to consider the lol lowing three irnportant aspects :

¶79

(a) Whether recalling of witness is necessary to come to a just conclusion and to find out truth to decide the /ls involved in the matter;

¶80

(b) Whether the prosecution has filed the application to fill up the lacunae; and

¶81

¶82

iv) As discussed above, the Court below vide order dated 20.02.2018 in Crl.M.P. No.20l of 2017 in S.C. No.777 of 2013 has allowe.d the said petition and the docurnents were received subject

¶83

¶84

KL'J Crl.P. Nos.l228 & 1345 of2020

¶85

to proof and r, levancy. Once^{the said LA. rvas alloued andthe} documents v2. photographs^{along with CD are received subject to} proof and rt levancy, the Court below cannot disrliss^the application fil :d by the pt'osecution under Section -^3l I^{of the} Cr.P.C. vide Cll.M.P. No.820 of 2018 to^re-callPW. I^{tbr the} purpose of ma rking the said documents on the ground that the same are not origir rls and that they are inadmissibleⁱⁿ evidence. lt^is relevant to rote that in the earlier order dated^20.02.2018 111 Cr1.M.P. Nc201 of 2017, the Courl below has^specifically

¶86

mentioned th rt if respondent Nos.2 to 7 - accused Nos.l to 6^have got any obje:tion over the said documents, they are at liberty to raise their o'rjections before the Court when they are admitted^as evidence. lhus, the accused will be given an opportunity to disprove tht said documents. In view of thc above, the Court below grosr ly erred in disrnissing the application vid: Crl.lvt.P. No.820 of2 )18 filed under Section - 3l I ofthe Cr.P.C, Tl.rerefbre. the order dr ted 17.01.2020 passed by the Court belorv in Crl.M.P. No.820 of i 0 i 8 is liable to be quashed.

¶87

¶88

KL,J Crl.P. Nos.l228 & 1345 of2020

¶89

For the loregoing discussion, both the Criminal Petitions are allorved. Accordingly, Crl.M.P. No.544 of 2018 in S.C. No.777 of 2013 filed by the prosecution under Section - 23 1 of the Cr.P.C. to receive the receipt dated 26.04.2011 is allowed. Similarly, Crl.M.P. No.820 of 2018 in S.C. No.777 of 2013 filed by the prosecution under Section - 311 of the Cr.P.C, to recall PW.l for the purpose of marking the photographs along with CD is also allowed. However, respondent Nos.2 to 7 - accused Nos.1 to 6 are at libefty to cross-examine PW. I on the said documents Further, the Coum below is directed to issue summons to PW,1 for the purpose of rnarking the said documents. Since the Sessions Case is of 201 3 vear, the Court belorv is also directed to dispose of the sarne in accordance rvith law as expeditiously as possible

¶90

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both

¶91

the Climinal Petitions shall stand closed.

¶92

SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT,-REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secir8H^oFFlcER

¶93

to'.,. -nu rV Additionar lr,4etroporitan sessions Judge, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddv District.

¶94

Reddv District.

¶95

, ?#3,r1il^{iouseotricer, Narsinsi Police station' Cvberabad' Ranga} a T;:t3]ilirti" -^{Rs.i.tuntpubric prosecutor, Hishcourt for the State of}

¶96

Telangana,^{at HYderabad [OUT]}

¶97

4 ;; ic i;'sir.^{rrrrosnr uAnpu,Advocate [oP-u-c]} ;. il; 6c^{i" rtut E. sudhanshu Rao' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶98

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶99

One^SPareCoPY MMK

HIGH COURT

DATED:07^l03lit022

e 5',
/
Y
q
(d o 7 l'/ila
/
-- - -.:--:",'>

¶104

COMMON^OIIDER

¶105

CRLP.Nos.1228^{and 1345 of 2020}

¶106

ALLOWIN(i THE BOTH^{CRIMINALPETITIONS}

¶107

Mry
v

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao v. The State of Telangana

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

Raghu Pajjuri Vs State of Ts

Bethamcherla Mahamad Vali Vs The State of Telangana

Jadi Rajamallu Vs Erram Tirupathi and 8 others

Puchakayala Rajani Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Savalam Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Shravan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana