Dismissed

Kottapally Ravi @ Ravinder v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024WP/29264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the Investigating Officer to consider CCTV recordings retrieved from the scene of crime. The Court held that in the absence of specific provisions in Cr.P.C., it is not supposed to direct the IO to consider specific footages, especially when the counter affidavit stated such footage was already considered. The petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kottapally Ravi @ Ravinder Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IMONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29264 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kottapally Ravi @ Ravinder, S/o Nayakaiah Age:47 yrs., Caste:- S.C (Madiga) Occ. work inspeclor in irrigation Department, Ri/o H.no - 4-4-51, Shakkaranagar, Bodhan Nizamabad-503'185.

¶9

Kottapally Saroja, Wo Kottapally Ravi Age .35 yrs., Caste:- S.C. (Madiga) Occ. work inspector in irrigation Department, Rl/o H.no - 4-4-51, Shakkaranagar, Bodhan Nizamabad-5031 B5

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by principal secretary, Home department, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Director General of police, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 Commissioner of police, Nizamabad

¶15

4 The station House officer, lnspector of Police, Bodhan Police Station, Bodhan, Nizamabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring,the action of Respondent l,lo.2 in not disposing the representation of the petitioner no 2 dated 12-07 -2023 along with the^pen drive containing the CCTV Recording on the dates of 19-06-2023, 20-06-2023 and 21-06-2023 retrieved from the original DVR maintained at the scene of alleged crime no 30712023 U/s 376(2)(f), 342, 50€., 195 A read with sec 34 of IPC ,^{sec 3 readwith4 of pocso act dated21-06-2023 on the file of respondent no 4} is nothing but omission of consideration of crucial material evidence in the case to meet the ends of^justice and vlolative of principbs of natural^justice and also against article 14 and 21 of constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent no 2 to Dispose of representation of the petitioner date 12-O7 -2023 directing the respondent no 4 to consider the original DVR recording held at the

¶18

scene^{of offence in crime no 30712023 for the alleged dateson1 9-06-2023,} zo-oa-zozl^{and 21-06-20243 as a part of investigation as a part of investigation.}

¶19

IANO:1^{oF 2024}

¶20

petition under section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the^{affidavitfiled in support of the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto} .,iio,. o.rmi.sion^{to permit the petitioner to submit the original DVRl TB} SfVnAwr^{(Hard Disk) vide NoST1000VX005' SN:Z9CE99FR,} ii:2EZ1O2-3o0,^{FW:CV1 1,} WWN:5000C500E45CDDA4, PSID: Zt_JVHZruUZVG4TLGVF22LUKBJGQZSDV6Z^{With DOB:23teb2022 along with} p"n Arir"^{containing materialobjects pertaining to crime no 3O712023on the file} of resPondent^{no 4'}

¶21

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: M/s' P' LALITHA KAMESH}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Respondents: ASST' GP FOR HOME}

¶23

The^{Courtmade the following: ORDER}

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶26

\vRIT PETITION No.29264 of^2O23

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ^petition is^{filedseekingthe followingreliet}

¶29

"......to issue a^{writ, Order or Directionmoreparticularly one in} the nature of^{WRITOF MANDAMUSdeclaring the actionof respondent} No.2 in not disposing^{the representation of tlle petitioner No.2dated} 12.07 -2023 along^{withttre pendrive containing the CC'[V Recording on} the dates of^{L9.O6.2O23,20.06.2023and,21-06.2O23 r€trievedfrom the} original DVR maintained^{at the sceneof alleged CrimeNo.307/2023,U/s} 376(21(f), 342, 506,^{195 A read withSection34 of IPC, Section3 read} with 4 of Pocso Act,^{dated 21.O6.2023 on thefrle of respondent No.4 is} nothing but^{omissionof considerationof crucialmaterialevidencein t}le} case to meet the^{ends of justice and} .violative^{of principles of natural} justice and also against Articles¹⁴ and 2l of^{Constitutionof India arld} ionsequently direct^{respondentI\tro.2to Dispose of representationof t}le} petitioner dated 12.07.2023 directing^{resPondent No.4to considert}Ie} oagit af OVn^{recording held at the sceneof offencein CrimeNo.3O7} /?-O23 for the alleged dates on^{19.06.2023,20.06.2023 and 21.06.2023as a} part of investigation as a^{partof investigation.. .. . .'}

¶30

It is stated that^{petitionerNo.2 is the wife of petitionerNo.l, who} is arrayed^{as accusedNo.l in Crime No.307 of 2023, dated 2I.06.2023} registered for^{the offencespunishableunderSections 376(2X0,342,506,} 195 (A) rlw 34^{of IPC; Section3 r/w 4 of POCSOAct, 2012. The case of} petitioner No.2 is^{that she submitted a representation,dated L2.O7 '2023} before respondent^{No.2 requesting to direct the concerned Investigating} ollicer to^{consider the ccTVfootagesof the alleged offencewhichtook} place on L9.O6.2O23 at^{18:O0 hoursalong with originalDVR for conc'luding} the investigation^{in Crime No.307 of 2023. The grievance of the petitioner} is that despite the^{said representation,ttre InvestigatingOIIicer} intentionally^{omittedto c''onsiderthe availablematerial evidencein the form}

¶31

¶32

of CCTV footages, which is the most efficient, accurate and technical evidence to bring out the facts and to prove that petitioner No. 1 is not present at the alleged scene of offence.

¶33

Learned counsel for the qrv p etitione culroners submitted that Since petitioner No'I was falsely implicated as accused No.1 in crime No.307 0f 2023' petitioner No' 1 filed crl'p.No .62g3 0f 2023 0nthe file of this courr and the same is pending for adjudication. Leamed counsel further submitted that if the Investigating oflicer had retrieved the evidence recorded in the origina-r DVR, it would have disclosed that petitioner No. I is not present at the scene of offence, thereby enabling petitioner No. I to prove his innocence for deletion of his name from the array of accused and as such, Iearned counsel sought for a directi on to respondent No.2 to direct the concerned Investigating Offrcer to consider the representation submitted by petitioner No.2.

¶34

A counter aflidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 that a case in crime No'307 0f 2023, dated 2r.o6.2023 forthe offences under Sections 376(21(q, A42, 506, r95 (4 t/w 34 of IpC; Sectio n 3 r/w4 of pOCSO Act, 2072 was registered against petitioner No. I and the respondents-police took up the investigation into the said crime. It is further stated that during the course of investigation the respondents-porice have issued notice und€r section 50(a)(l) of cr'p.c to the accused and the Medica-l olficer examined petitioner No. l/accused No.1. It is further stated that the crime

¶35

¶36

¶37

scene is located at back side house of elder brother of petitioner No.1, who is accused No.2 in the said crime and there are only three CCTV cameras installed in the premises of accused No.2,s house, which is covering towards road side, but not towards crime scene and the Investigating Oflicer collected CCTV carl€ra visuals available in house premises of accused No.2 appearin g on 19.06.2023 at evening in between 0S:3O pm to 07:0O hours, which would reveal the movements of petitioner No. 1/accused No' I was appearing in front of accused No.2 house and going towards crime scene' It is further stated that there is no lacuna or flaw on the part of the Investigating Officer in collecting the evidence, therefore, the present writ petition frled by the petitioners is misconceived and the same is liabre to be dismissed.

¶38

5' It is settled proposition of law that any error, illegarity or defect in the investigation cannot have any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice is caused to the accused. The criminal Procedure code under which investigation of offences is conducted does not contain any provision to deal with irregularities committed by the Investigation ollicer in the course of investigation. The defects in the investigation have a role to play in appreciation of evidence by Courts. If direct evidence is credible, failure, defect or negtigence in investigation cannot adversely alfect the prosecution case, though the Court should be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. There are no rigid rules regarding appreciation of evidence. Effect of shortcomings on the part of the olficer

I t

registering a case or the I.O. are part of the task ofjudge in appreciation of evidence.

¶43

It is the case of petitioners/accused that CCTV footages in the hori se premises of accused No.2 at the time of crime scene are required to be taken into consideration as material evidence for the purpose of evaluating evidence by the Investigating Oflicer, which would reveal that petitioner No. 1/accused is not involved in the alleged crime.

¶44

This Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of specific provision under the Cr.P.C., is not supposed to direct the Investigating Officer to take into consideration the footages of CCTV alleged to have been installed in the premises of accused No.2. Moreover, in view of the specific statement made in the counter affrdavit tJlat the Investigating Oflicer had already taken into consideration the CCTV footages available in the house premises of accused No.2, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief sought by the petitioners.

¶45

In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶47

stand closed

¶48

SD/- K.SREERAMA^MURTHY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// 6t'

¶49

SECTION^OFFICER

¶50

To, 1 one^{CC to lvUsi} B.^13!lrHA^{KAMESH' Advocate to"t?l",unn"na.} [oUT] 2 Y;; 6c=^{t"'cC FoR HotvlE' High courtfor the state} 3 Two^{CD CoPies} BN GJP

*
a

Ajt ta

Jl.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 810312024

ORDER

t/VP.No.29264 of 2023

¶60

1
a
3 ) 07 r ?I74 za
rt
cO *
9t-sparc a

¶61

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

6-t GP &o--..-.-"W9-

Kottapally Ravi @ Ravinder v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kottapally Ravi @ Ravinder v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandhari Anitha Vs The State of Telangana

Poosa Eleshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Thakur Pruthvi Raj Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Amgoth Saroja Vs The State of Telangana

Guguloth Veeranna Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Smt. Tasneem Faiyaz Bhagat Vs The State of Telangana