Allowed

The State of Telangana v. Tejavath Upender Naik

Telangana HC21 Sept 2024CRLP/7203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prosecution sought recall of Pw-15, a panch witness to the confession panchanama of A-1, after trial court dismissed the Section 311 application as filling lacunas. The High Court held recalling him would still expose his evidence to cross-examination, allowed the petition and directed recall and examination of the witness.

What did the court decide?

Trial court ordered to recall Pw-15; prosecution to examine him on the fixed day; accused to cooperate with the trial.

The State of Telangana Vs Tejavath Upender Naik — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[33851

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

SATURDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7203 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

The State of Telangana, through the Station House Officer, tr,{udigonda P.S., Khammam Commissisonerate, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor. High Court for the State ofTelangana. Hyderabad - 500 066.

¶9

...Petitioner/ Complainant

¶10

AND

¶11

Tejavath Upender Naik, S/o. Krishna, Age 33 years, Occ. CRPF Constable CT/GD, 2" BN, R/o. Sukma Thanda, Mudigonda lvlandal, Khammam District.

¶12

Tejavath Padma, Wo.Krishna, Age 54 years, Occ. Agriculture, PJo. Banapuram Thanda, [\Iudigonda lvlandal, Khammam Distrrct

¶13

3- Tejavath Krishna, S/o.Valya, Age 57 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Banapuram Thanda, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District

¶14

lslavath Aruna, Wo.Late Venkateswarlu, Age 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ryo. Ivlangapuram Thanda, Mudigonda Mandal, Khamrnam District

¶15

Dara Kavitha, Wo. Ramesh, Age 37 years, Occ. Housewife, Rt/o. ttludigonda Village Mandal, Khammam District

¶16

...RespondenU Accused

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Orders dated 261412024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khammam in Crl.M.P.No.7l2O24 in S.C.No.21512021 by recalling Pw-15 for further chief examination.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearirrg the arguments of Sri D.ARUN KUf.IAR, the Additional PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, on behatf of the sote Petitioner and Sri S RAN4 REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 to 5.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO.72030F 2o2+}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This criminal petition is f,rled^{under Section 482 of Code of} Criminal Procedure, 1973^{(for short'Cr.P.C') to quash the order} dated,26.O4.2O24^{passed in Crl.M'P.No.7 of 2024 in S'C No'215} of 2O2l by the Sessions^{Judgeat Khammam.}

¶24

-2. Crl.M.P.No.7 of 2024^{was frled by the prosecutionunder} Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C, to^{recall Pw- 15 forfurther chief} examination on the^ground that^{at the time when Pw' 15 was} examined in chief,^{some materialfacts could not be elicited from} him. The said petition^was opposed^{by the respondents/accused} therein on the ground that^{if Pw. 15 is recalled, it is nothingbut} Iilling up the lacunas on^{the part of prosecution by threatening} him, in order to^{get positiveevidence in their favour which will} aflect the defence of the accused.^{After hearing both sides'the} trial Court dismissed^{the said petition.}

¶25

Hcard Sri D.Arr-.r.n Kumar,^{learned AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor appearing for^{petitionerin both thecriminal} petitions and Sri S. Rarn Reddy,^{learned counsel appearing for} respondents/accused.

¶26

¶27

Aggrieved by the order impugned, the ltresent criminal petition is hled stating that some material fac.ts could not be elicited through hr.. lS at the time of his chief-examin,ation and it is necessary and relevant lor just disposal of the matter. The triai Court ought to have seen that no prej udice .rould be caused to the defence as the said w.itness will be sutljected to cross-examination by the defence counsel and p rayed this Court to allou, tht: cnminal peLirion bv setting aside the impugned order.

¶28

Learnr:cl Additional public prosecutor would sut)mit that at the time of examination of pw. 15, the prosccution has not elicited somr: importanI aspccts from the said vr.itness who is a panch for conlession of A. 1 and he is an official witness.

¶29

On the other hand, the apprehension of learned counsel for the respondents/accused is that pw. 15 is a Government employee and there is every chance of threatening hin-r to give positive evidcnce on behalf of the prosecution. A.s such, prayed this Court ro dismiss this criminal perition.

¶30

Having regard to the submissions madc by troth the: counsel anr:l the material on record, it is seen that i.. 15 is a panch for r:onfession panchanama of A. I and he was; earlier

¶31

¶32

examined by the^{prosecutionand after recording his chief-} examination^{the public prosecutordeclaredhim as hostile and} gave suggestions,^{whereas the contention of learned counsel for} the petitioner^{herein is that Pw 15 he is only a palch witness} and if he is^{examinedsomeimportant aspects will be elicited} from him and^{therefore,itis necessary to recallthe said} witness

¶33

Admitteclly,^{Pw. 15 is a panch for confession panchanama'} If he is recalled^{and any importantfacts are elicitedfrom him'} there is every^{chanceof cross-examining the said witness by the} defence counsel.^{As such, the order of the trial Court is liable} to be set aside

¶34

g. Accordingty,^{the CriminalPetitionis allowed'The trial} Court is directed^{to recall Pw.15' The prosecution is directedto} examine the^{saidwitness on the day fixed by the trial Court and} accused is^{also directed to cooperatewith the trial'}

¶35

Miscellaneous^{pelitions, pending,if any, shall stand closed'}

¶36

SD/-P.CH.NAGAB HUSHAMBA ./ ASSISTAN REGISTRAR JI

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

l.ThellAdditionalJudicialFirstClassMagistrateatKhammam. 2. The Station^{House Officer,rtliOiO""qle-"fi99} lftion^KhammamDist' 3. Two CCs^{to the PUBLliPRoSrtuion'High Co^urtat Hyderabad(oUT)} +. O"! CClo^{Snl.S. RArvl REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI}

¶42

s Two CD^CoPies

RC )

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2110912024

ORDER

,/. . ,l'l , it., ' cl.
?i
'P
J
' .fl1 \a I
I

¶48

CRLP.No.7203 of 2024

¶49

ACCORDINGLY, THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED

The State of Telangana v. Tejavath Upender Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Telangana v. Tejavath Upender Naik

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

Mr. K.Anand Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Umesh Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

Doddipalli Suryanarayana @ Surya Vs The State of Telangana

Tera Jayavardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sharjil Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Farooquddin Vs The State of Telangana