Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 130 (AP)

Gellanki Ravi Kumar @ Ravi v. Peddinti Savitramma

2025-01-22

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
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 27.11.2017 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, 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. 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 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: “ 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. 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: “ 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 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. 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 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 Punjab, [ (2014) 3 SCC 92 ]. In the case at hand, the learned Sessions Judge commenced trial in S.C.No.102 of 2021 as charges were framedagainst 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 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 Punjab, [ AIR 2023 SC 1 ].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 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. 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 referred Hardeep Singh’s case, [supra 1],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. 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.