Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 24 (AP)

J. C. CHITHARANJAN REDDY v. STATE OF A. P.

2005-01-18

A.GOPAL REDDY

body2005
JUDGEMENT 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C., to revise the orders passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Anantapur D/- 8-7-2003 in Cri. M. P. No. 158/2003 in SC No. 271/2001, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 and A-9 for summoning Superintendent of Police, CBCID to produce the record of investigation in Cr. No. 80/2001 of Muchukota Police Station in RCC No. 5060 D/- 23-12-2004 was dismissed. 2. The petitioners who were figured as accused in SC No. 271/2002 are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 341 r/w. 149 and 120(B), I.P.C. They filed the present petition stating that on their representation Government of Andhra Pradesh directed Superintendent of Police, CBCID to further investigate into the crime and to submit a report. As per the said direction, Senior Police Officer, CBCID conducted investigation and seems to have submitted a report after examining the witnesses who got acquaintance with the facts and circumstances of the case, apart from the witnesses who were examined by the local police. The said record is very much necessary to enable the Court to arrive at a just decision in the above case and if the record of investigation has not been summoned, the petitioners-accused will be deprived of an opportunity of examining the witnesses in reference to their earlier statements. The lower Court dismissed the said application holding that charge sheet was filed against the accused on 18-2-2002 and additional charge sheet was filed on 1-5-2002. Since the petitioners have received the relevant documents, which are relied upon by the prosecution, the prosecution is not expected to go beyond the record that was already filed in the Court. Similarly, the petitioners/accused are entitled to depend upon the relevant record that was already filed by the prosecution, on the basis of which charges were already framed against the accused. If for any reason, if the accused intended to adduce evidence, they can adduce evidence at the time of examining the defence witnesses, there is an ample opportunity to prove their innocence. In the absence of any concrete proof about alleged investigation said to have been done as learnt by the petitioners, application cannot be entertained. 3. If for any reason, if the accused intended to adduce evidence, they can adduce evidence at the time of examining the defence witnesses, there is an ample opportunity to prove their innocence. In the absence of any concrete proof about alleged investigation said to have been done as learnt by the petitioners, application cannot be entertained. 3. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners who have been falsely implicated submitted a representation to the Government to direct the Superintendent of Police, CBCID to investigate into the matter and accordingly, Additional Director of Police, CID was directed to investigate into the matter, but in the meanwhile case was committed to the Court of Sessions on charge sheet being filed by the police, CID, who investigated into the matter by examining number of witnesses including the witnesses cited by the prosecution and those statements have to be used for cross examining the material prosecution witnesses to prove contradictions by examining the concerned investigating officer as a witness. He further submitted that the dismissal of the application will amount to denial of valuable right of the accused to cross-examine the witnesses and the lower Court is not justified in dismissing the petition. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the revision contending that under Sections 207 and 208 all the relevant record on which prosecution relied upon will be supplied to the petitioners but the record sought to be produced is not a part of the papers which are supplied to the accused, therefore it cannot be summoned and marked. For the said proposition, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, (2004 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 1097 : ( AIR 2005 SC 498 )). 5. The record produced by the Additional Public Prosecutor clearly indicates that after filing charge-sheet on 18-2-2002 and additional charge-sheet on 1-5-2002 a representation dated 3-5-2002 seems to have been submitted to the Chief Minister by the MPs of Anantapur and Hindupur along with the representations of A-1 and A-2, which was forwarded to Additional Director General of Police (CID), Hyderabad by the Principal Secretary to Chief Minister stating that "the Chief Minister desired that this matter may be got enquired into and a report submitted". Accordingly, Additional Director General of Police (CID), Hyderabad directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Anantapur to submit a report. Pursuant to the directions, he submitted a report on 3-10-2002 stating that A-1 to A-4 are not involved either directly or indirectly and they are innocent persons. For coming to the said conclusion, he recorded the statements of Jutur Chinnareddigari Chittaranjan Reddy (A-1), s/o late J. C. Ranga Reddy; Komali Rambhoopal Reddy, s/o Suryanarayana Reddy; Mitta Pedda Anki Reddy, s/o Late Chinna Malla Reddy; Rathimedde Suryanarayana alias Soori, s/o Late Venkatappa; Muchukota Prathap Reddy, s/o Late Narsimha Reddy; followed by another report dated 14-12-2002 on the representation of A1-J, Chittaranjan Reddy and statements of Muchumarri Chinna Bayapa Reddy (A-2), s/o M. P. Yella Reddy; Gangi Reddy Venkata Siva Reddy, s/o Narayana Reddy; Kethi Reddy Venkata Nagi Reddy, s/o Late Venkat Reddy; Paila Narsimhaiah, s/o P. Obulesu. None of the above persons, who were examined, were shown as list of witnesses by the police in the charge-sheet. 6. Thus it is obvious that after police filing charge-sheet, Government forwarded the representation to the Additional Director General of Police, CID for further investigation into the matter. The accused cannot claim further investigation, as a matter of right, except that Investigating Officer or in charge of police station can undertake further investigation even after charge-sheet is filed and if there is some omission, further investigation, if called for is not precluded and Investigating Officer can inform the Court about the further investigation and can produce additional information gathered prior and subsequent to the investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. If the plea of the petitioners-accused is accepted, there is every possibility that the persons involved in the crime, who are close to the power quarter will escape from the penal consequences by referring the matter to another investigating agency, as was done in the present case, and if such interference is called for by the Government the persons involved in the crime, who are faction ridden will abuse the process to wriggle out from the penal consequences. 7. The record produced by the Public Prosecutor do not disclose that the list of witnesses who were examined by the police for laying charge-sheet were once again examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who retracted their statement made to the Investigating Officer who laid the charge-sheet. 7. The record produced by the Public Prosecutor do not disclose that the list of witnesses who were examined by the police for laying charge-sheet were once again examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who retracted their statement made to the Investigating Officer who laid the charge-sheet. The prosecution is not going to rely upon the statement, which was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Ananthapur. In the absence of the same, petitioner/accused cannot make any reference to the said statement nor the report so procured at the instance of local MPs. In view of the same, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that to prove the contradictions by confronting the said witnesses to the statements made earlier before the Investigation Officer with the statements recorded by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID does not commend acceptance. In the absence of examination of prosecution witnesses, who were shown in the charge-sheet, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID the petitioners-accused will not have any indefeasible right to claim that said witnesses who were cited by the prosecution have to be contradicted in terms of the statements recorded by CBCID. 8. It is always open for the petitioners to produce such of the evidence to show that their physical participation in the murder of Venkatachalpathi is not correct and they were falsely implicated as accused due to political pressure and can prove their innocence as per law. 9. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.