Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Gellanki Ravi Kumar Ravi vs Peddinti Savitramma on 22 January, 2025
APHC010212282023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 364/2023
Between:
Gellanki Ravi Kumar @ Ravi ...PETITIONER
AND
Peddinti Savitramma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. K PRIDHVI RAJU
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.364 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401
of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the
petitioner/respondent No.8/proposed party assailing the order
dated 21.02.2023 of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram in
Crl.M.P.No.892 of 2022 in S.C.No.102 of 2021.
2. Heard arguments of Sri M.Sreerama Rao, the learned
counsel for revision petitioner and Sri K.Pridhvi Raju, the learned
counsel for respondent No.1/de facto complainant and the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-State.
3. Brief facts of the case are required to be noticed:
The marriage between Sri G.Rajkapoor and Smt. Kumari
was solemnized on 20.05.2015. In her matrimonial house the
married woman suffered an unnatural death on 26.11.2017.
Thereupon her mother/respondent No.1 alleging that the accused
subjected the deceased to cruelty lodged a written information on
3
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 202327.11.2017 which was registered as Crime No.179 of 2017 of
Jaggampeta Police Station. After due investigation, citing 25
witnesses the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram filed a
charge sheet before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Peddapuram for the offences punishable under Section 304B
read with 34 I.P.C. A.1 to A.7 are shown as accused. A.4 therein
is Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi. He is elder brother to the husband
of the deceased lady. This G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi mentioned in
Sl.No.4 in the charge sheet has not been sent up for trial. The
investigation officer recorded that on recording the statements of
witnesses/LW.13 to LW.17 he found no case against Sri G.Ravi
Kumar @ Ravi. In the charge sheet he made a mention that he
informed the situation to his superiors and obtained orders dated
25.12.2018 permitting him to drop the case against Sri G.Ravi
Kumar @ Ravi.
The learned Magistrate summoned rest of the accused,
furnished them with copies of documents and in terms of Section
209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The
case was registered as S.C.No.102 of 2021 and was placed for
consideration before the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge,
4
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. He took cognizance in
terms of Section 193 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, he framed
charges against the accused and adjourned the matter to fix up
dates for trial schedule. It was thereafter that the de facto
complainant filed a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was
also signed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor of the
Additional Sessions Court. That petition was filed under Section
319 Cr.P.C. seeking to add the omitted accused and try him
along with other accused.
In the said petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the de
facto complainant alleged that the name of Sri G.Ravi Kumar @
Ravi was there in the F.I.R. and was there in the statements of
witnesses and his omission in the charge sheet is an error on part
of investigation agency and therefore, he should be added as one
of the accused to be tried along with other accused. Learned
Additional Sessions Court served a notice on Sri G.Ravi Kumar
@ Ravi. He appeared and filed a counter resisting the claim.
After due hearing, by an order dated 21.02.2023 the learned
Additional Sessions Court allowed the petition and thereby it
directed Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi to stand up for trial. It is stated
5
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
that on 16.03.2023 the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed
charges against this newly added accused by name Sri G.Ravi
Kumar @ Ravi.
4. In this revision the newly added accused Sri G.Ravi Kumar
@ Ravi impugned the order of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge in Crl.M.P.No.892 of 2022 in S.C.No.102 of 2021 assailing
it as illegal in terms of the stage of the case where such decision
was taken.
5. The point that falls for consideration is:
“Whether a Sessions Court is entitled to invoke
powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after framing of
charges and before commencement of recording
of evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses?
POINT:
6. Since in the impugned order the powers under Section 319
Cr.P.C. were exercised by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, it is necessary to see what this provision provides for and
the same is extracted hereunder:
6
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing
to be guilty of offence.–(1) Where, in the course of any
inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the
evidence that any person not being the accused has
committed any offence for which such person could be tried
together with the accused, the Court may proceed against
such person for the offence which he appears to have
committed(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be
arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case
may require, for the purpose aforesaid(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under
arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court
for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence
which he appears to have committed(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under
sub-section (1), then–
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be
commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may
proceed as if such person had been an accused
person when the Court took cognizance of the offence
upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”
7. The learned trial Court at paragraph No.10 of its order
stated that it is competent to invoke its power under Section 319
7
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
Cr.P.C. at any stage of the case including the stage before
commencement of the trial. At paragraph No.11 it stated that the
trial of the case was yet to commence and as it found that prima
facie material is there against Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi as is
seen from the investigation record, it thought it fit to join him as
one of the accused and try him along with other accused.
8. At the hearing it remained undisputed that prior to the
addition of the revision petitioner as one of the accused the
learned Additional Sessions Judge heard both sides and framed
charges as against other accused who are arraigned in the
charge sheet.
9. In a criminal case a trial is said to commence on framing of
charges. A trial is to find truth. On conducting trial if the accused
is found to be innocent, he would be acquitted. On the other
hand, if he is found to have committed the offence, he would be
convicted. The stage of framing charges is a crucial stage in a
case. It is at that stage the accused is entitled to enter his plea
which include admission of his complicity. It is at that stage a
Criminal Court is entitled to record the plea of the accused which
include his admissions on facts and plea of guilt and accordingly
8
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
it could pronounce the judgment against him. Earlier to the stage
even if the accused admits the entire case alleged against him, a
Criminal Court is not empowered to render its final decision on
the guilt or otherwise of the accused. Therefore, in a criminal
case framing of charge amounts commencement of trial. For
reference on the principle that in a criminal case trial commences
on framing of charges, one could refer to Hardeep Singh v. State
of Punjab1. In the case at hand, the learned Sessions Judge
commenced trial in S.C.No.102 of 2021 as charges were framed
against the other accused. Thus, trial commenced. However, in
the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge was
lingering under a misconception of law and stated that trial in the
case did not commence. He further stated that in the pre-trial
process he was entitled to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. In view of
what is stated earlier by this Court and in view of the ruling of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that view of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge that the trial did not commence is a
legal error. Since trial commenced, the power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. is to be exercised has to be considered. Sub-Section (1)
of Section 319 Cr.P.C. provides that trial Court has power to
1
(2014) 3 SCC 92
9
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence
and the power can be exercised only when it appears from the
evidence collected during the trial that any person not being the
accused has committed any offence for which such person could
be tried together with the other accused on record, the Court
could proceed against such person. In Sub-Section (4) of Section
319 Cr.P.C. it provides that if such other person is summoned to
stand up to participate in the trial, the proceedings in respect of
such person shall be commenced afresh and witnesses are to be
re-heard. All that makes it clear that if a Court intends to add a
new accused during the process of trial, it can do so based on
evidence it recorded. In other words, if evidence in the trial is not
yet recorded, then this power cannot be exercised. Reference in
this regard can be made to a ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab2. After
noticing Section 319 Cr.P.C. at paragraph No.14, their Lordships
stated “at the outset, having noted the provision, it is amply clear
that the power bestowed on the Court is to the effect that in the
course of an inquiry into, or trial of an offence, based on the
evidence tendered before the Court, if it appears to the Court that
2
AIR 2023 SC 1
10
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
such evidence points to any person other than the accused who
are being tried before the Court to have committed any offence
and such accused has been excluded in the charge sheet or in
the process of trial till such time could still be summoned and tried
together with the accused for the offence which appears to have
been committed by such persons summoned as additional
accused.”
10. A reading of the order impugned in the case at hand shows
that as against other accused charges were framed and trial
schedule is yet to be fixed and no evidence was recorded by the
trial Court. It was at that stage without there being any evidence
being recorded; the trial Court exercised its power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. All that was a clear error as it went against the
mandate contained in Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the binding
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
ruling referred above.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1
and respondent No.2 is that Section 319 Cr.P.C. also used the
word ‘inquiry’ and therefore the impugned order cannot be called
as erroneous. There is no force in this submission. In the earlier
11
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
referred Hardeep Singh’s case3, their Lordships reiterated the
well-known principle that inquiry means pre-trial inquiry held by
the Court. Trial means the stage from where charges were
framed. In the case at hand, the facts on record indicate that the
trial commenced as charges were framed. It is unknown to law
that after framing of the charge and before recording of evidence
of first witness for prosecution there is no scope for any inquiry.
12. In the light of what is stated above, this Court holds that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge completely erred in exercising
his powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The order being illegal
cannot be supported and is required to be interfered with. The
point is answered accordingly.
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Order
dated 21.02.2023 of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram in
Crl.M.P.No.892 of 2022 in S.C.No.102 of 2021 is set aside.
Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.892 of 2022 in S.C.No.102 of 2021 is
dismissed. It goes without saying that the charge if any framed
against this petitioner Sri G.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi stand set aside.
3
supra 1
12
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
It is made clear that this order has not referred to any factual
aspects about involvement or otherwise of the revision petitioner
in the criminal case in S.C.No.102 of 2021. The powers of the
trial Court with reference to the addition of an additional accused
in the manner known to law are available with it and can be
exercised in accordance with law in the present case.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 22.01.2025
Ivd
13
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.364 of 2023
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.364 of 2023
Date: 22.01.2025
Ivd
[ad_1]
Source link