Dismissed¶42

Mr. Yeli Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Nov 2025CRLP/13455/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 CrPC recall of witnesses; further cross-examination refused; PW4 circumstantial witness; PW10 Investigating Officer; Section 161 CrPC statements confrontation; closure of prosecution evidence; final arguments advanced; discretionary power of the court; recall not mandatory when witnesses already cross-examined; Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana; offences under IPC (printed as '304(4)'); JMFC Yadadri; Crl.M.P.No.2218 of 2024; C.C.No.43/2016 (old) / C.C.No.11 of 2024 (new); quashal of trial court order refused; order upheld; Criminal Petition dismissed; Telangana High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

In the present case, PWs.4 and 10 had already been cross-examined at length and there were no new facts to be brought into light; relevant contradictions or omissions, if any, could be argued before the trial court. ¶36

Mr. Yeli Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

j' lr ir I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13455 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

fvlr. Yeli Ramesh, S/o Devendar Rao, Aged 35 yrs, Occ - Driver, R/o. Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court^of Judicature, Hyderabad^.

¶13

2 Yakari Mahendar, S/o. Swamy, Aged 29^yrs, Occ Employee, R/o.^Vangapally Village, Yadagirigutaa (t/), Yadadri- Bhuvangiri District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^{may be} pleased to quash the order dated 11. 7 . 2025 passed in Crl. M. P. No. 2218 of 2024 in C. C. No. 1112024 (New), C. C. No.43/2016(Old), filed under Section^3'11 of^Cr. P. C. for recall of PW4 and PW10 for further cross examination on the file of the Honble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yadadri.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

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 C. C. No. 1112024 (New), C C. No. 43120'16(OId), pending on the file of Honble Judicial^lvlagistrate of^First Class at Yadadri against the^petitioner herein for the offences under section³⁰⁴⁽⁴⁾ l. P. C, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the^argumentsof Sri Y SHASHIDHAR REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prosecutor} (fG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and NONE for the Respondent No.2

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

f I I I i I

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA EIVIEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13455 of 202!;

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitio rer-accused seeking to quash the order dated 11.07.2025 passe( in Crl.M.P No.221B of 2024 in CC No 11 of 2024 (old CC No 4l) cf 2016) on the file of Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, Yadadri nrherein the said application for recalling PWs.4 and 10 for i rther cross examination, was dismissed

¶24

Heard Sri Y. Shashidhar Reddy, learned cc,r nsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learnr.. I Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has su rmitted that before the trial court, the defence counsel has faile,l to put-forth certain relevant questions to PW.4-circumstantial wit I tss and 10lnvestigating Officer, during the course of cross-exa1 ination and thus, now the petitioner intended to recall the said wi resses, but the trial court has dismissed the said petition deprivirg the right of the petitioner. He further submitted that the trial co rt ought to have allowed the petition to provide ample opportr nity to the petitioner to raise his defence, therefore, much rejudice IS

¶26

¶27

EfO,J Ctl,P. No,l315s ot 2025

¶28

caused to the petitioner and hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the petition to recall PWs.4 and 10 for further cross-exam in ation

¶29

Learned Additional Public Prosecr,itor has opposed the petition, submitting that the said witnesses were already crossexamined at length and that recalling them is not required and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶30

Perused the record

¶31

The petition under Section 311 of Cr P C. was filed by the petitioner contending that while cross-examining PW.4, the counsel before the trial court has omitted some material questions due to oversight and that he failed to confront the witness with the statements under Section^'161 Cr.P.C. He also contended that the lnvestigating Officer, who is examined as PW.10 may also be recalled as he recorded the statements of PW.4 to confront the said statements. The prosecution has also filed counter and opposed the petition. lt is contended in their counter that the prosecution has advanced the final arguments and thereafter the defence counsel has filed the petition under Section 311 CrP.C., to recall the eye-witness and the lnvestigating Officer. lt is further

¶32

¶33

Efo,J C.P.No,13a55ol2025

¶34

borne out by record that the prosecution evidence w. s closed and that ample opportunity was given by the court to t re petitioneraccused for cross examination of the witnesses. Thr: :opies of the depositions are also filed along with the present peti.i rn. A perusal of the same reveals that both the witnesses were cr( ss examined at length

¶35

Further, the trial court has also discussec he case law relied upon by the petitioner in Satbir Singh v. Stat: of Haryanal and extracted the relevant paragraph. ln the said de:ision, it was held that recalling of witnesses is not mandatory a rd it can be exercised^judiciously and discretionary power is vr: ted with the court and that when the witnesses are cross-examirr d, they need not be recalled casually A person already examin:^j can be reexamined only when they are expected to be able c throw light upon the matter in dispute

¶36

B. ln the present case, the said witnesses are rlready cross examined at length and there are no such new facts': be brought into light. The contradictions or omissions, if any, that are relevant, can be argued before the trial court. Hence, the 1r al court was

¶37

1 zozs tttsc +10

¶38

¶39

ETO,J crt.P. No,134550t Z0?5

¶40

right in dismissing the^petition. Therefore, there is no infirmity in

¶41

the order passed by the trial court and hence, the same is upheld

¶42