Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1267 (AP)

Azghar Ahmed Khan v. State Of A. P.

2002-10-30

S.R.K.PRASAD

body2002
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner invokes inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , and seeks quashing of the proceedings in C. C. No. 986 of 1998 on the sole ground that the A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-8, are acquitted during trial and the evidence of witnesses have not been accepted by the trial court and C. C. No. 986 of 1998 is separated against A-9 being the petitioner herein and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions reported in Thallapalli Rajaiah v. State of A. P. and janyavula Rambabu v. The State rep. by Inspector of Police. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor has contended that simply because some of the accused are acquitted does not be a ground for quashing the proceedings against rest of other accused whose case has been separated from the original case and placed reliance on the decision reported in G. Venkataratnam kumar v. State of A. P. ( 4 ) ADVERTING to the said contentions, the question that falls for consideration is whether the court disbelieved the evidence of witnesses during trial against some of the accused persons and proceedings are liable to be quashed. Sri Justice M. Ranga Reddy has categorically stated in the aforesaid decision Janyavula Rambabu v. The State rep. by Inspector of Police that when the witnesses have turned hostile, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding against some of the accused. The principle laid down by this court in the above decision has been followed in Thallapalli Rajaiah s case also (supra 1 ). It is clearly stated in para 8 as follows:"the petitioner was said to be absconding, however, he was arrested on 10-6-1999 and has been in jail as the bail application is said to have been dismissed. Under the circumstances, inasmuch as same witnesses have to be examined there is no even a remote possibility of the trial ending in the conviction of the petitioner herein. It would be abuse of the process of the court if the petitioner is compelled to go through the ritual of facing the trial. " ( 5 ) IN G. Venkataratnam Kumar v. State of a. P. (supra 3) Sri Justice T. Ch. It would be abuse of the process of the court if the petitioner is compelled to go through the ritual of facing the trial. " ( 5 ) IN G. Venkataratnam Kumar v. State of a. P. (supra 3) Sri Justice T. Ch. Surya Rao has deviated from the principle laid down above and observed that the proceedings cannot be quashed, as can be seen from paras 4 and 5, which read as follows:"the police after conducting investigation laid the charge-sheet against the petitioner also as aforesaid, which discloses prima facie case against the petitioner. There has been no legal bar as such to maintain the case against the petitioner before that Court. The sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence against the accused-petitioner to warrant a conviction at the time of the trial is not germane for consideration at this stage to quash the proceedings. Similarly, the fact that the split up cases against the other accused in this case ended in acquittal cannot be the sole ground for throwing away the case against the petitioner without there being any trial by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even the ground that the eye-witnesses have not stated the name of the petitioner herein in their previous statements while implicating the other accused equally cannot be a valid ground for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. If the eye-witnesses speak the name of the petitioner tomorrow at the time or the trial, their omission to mention the name of the petitioner in their previous statements becomes a matter of appreciation by the Court below. But, from that it cannot be concluded that there is no case against the petitioner. If the eye-witnesses speak the name of the petitioner tomorrow at the time or the trial, their omission to mention the name of the petitioner in their previous statements becomes a matter of appreciation by the Court below. But, from that it cannot be concluded that there is no case against the petitioner. Apropos the other contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is a confession of the other accused in this case against the petitioner and the cases against the other accused have been ended in acquittal, that confession cannot now be relied upon against the petitioner and, therefore, to allow the proceedings to continue against the petitioner is nothing but harassment and abuse of the process of the Court; having regard to the averments made in the charge-sheet that there were two groups - one led by Ravi singh and the other led by Sudesh Singh @ Laddu Singh, to which the petitioner and the other accused in this case belong and that there had been enmity between the two groups since a long time, the members belonging to both the groups involved in several cases pertaining to mangalhat P. S. , Afzalgunj P. S. , and shahinayatgunj; and that on 20-11-1994 laddu Singh was murdered by other group and in retaliation on 21-11-1994 a-1 to A-11 who are associates of Laddu singh having armed themselves with deadly weapons attacked L. W. I and also damaged the household articles of l. W. 3, the sister of Ravi Singh and also burnt the house of L. W. 2; and that from there at about 09. 30 a. m. , they went to the house of Vijay Singh, attacked him and his brother-Raj an Singh with deadly weapons and also damaged the household articles; it is obvious that the prosecution is not solely relying upon the alleged confession of the co-accused but there is eye-witnesses account. The ground that all the three eye-witnesses did not state anything about the offence at the time of the trial in the other two split up cases cannot be a ground from which it can be legitimately concluded that in the trial to be taken up against the petitioner herein, they are not going to speak anything tomorrow against him. It is too premature at this stage to conclude anything about the case. It is too premature at this stage to conclude anything about the case. On the factual aspect, there fore, the request of the petitioner for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him cannot be countenanced. " ( 6 ) PREVIOUSLY, this Court has concurred with the view taken by Sri Justice M. Ranga reddy. I once again state that the principles laid down by Sri Justice M. Ranga Reddy followed by Sri Justice Vaman Rao are on the right lines. If the prosecution story is not adhered to before the court in respect of the accused whose cases have been split up, then it must be taken that they are not speaking truth and they are having reservations. More over, when the witness turned hostile, it cannot be imagined that he will again speak to the prosecution story and mention the name of the accused person, who has been absconding and who has made appearance subsequently. There is no slightest possibility of mentioning the name of the accused by the witnesses, if they have not spoken to already regarding the overt acts of the absconding accused. Viewed from this angle, i disagree with the reasoning mentioned in g. Venkataratnam Kumar s case (supra 3) and i agree with the reasoning mentioned in the aforesaid decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am of considered view that it is waste to continue the proceedings and it is abuse of process of the court if the trial were continued knowing fully well that the witnesses have already turned hostile in judicial proceedings. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and I, accordingly, quash the proceedings. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.