HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.121 of 2013 Date: 22.04.2014 Between:
K. Someswara Rao … Petitioner/ Complainant AND The State by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and 11 others. … Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.No.121 of 2013
ORDER:
The sole petitioner is the de facto complainant.
The order of the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam dated 30.11.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2012 in S.C.No.22 of 2010 is assailed by the petitioner/de facto complainant.
2. A case was registered in Crime No.24 of 2006 by Nowpada Police under Sections 147, 323, 342 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and under Sections 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCs & STs (POA) Act, for short) on the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein. The case was registered against the 11 accused as well as against one Lammatha Lakshumunaidu. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed against A.1 to A.11 only. The name of the person, who is proposed to be added as an accused (Lammatha Lakshumunaidu) was dropped from the array of accused. The case was taken on file by the learned Magistrate.
It was committed to Sessions Court and was numbered as S.C.No.22 of 2010. The learned Sessions Judge conducted trial of the case. The de facto complainant was examined as PW.1 before the Sessions Court. In all, 15 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 15 in S.C.No.22 of 2010. Alleging that PWs.1 to 4 deposed about the complicity of the proposed accused in the commission of the offence, Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2012 was laid by the State seeking to implead the proposed party as accused No.12 in S.C.No.22 of 2010. The proposed party was not arrayed as a respondent in Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2012.
3. A.1 to A.11, however, were arrayed as respondents 1 to 11 in Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2012.
The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the order, the de facto complainant filed the present revision to include the proposed party as A.12. Even in the revision, the proposed party is not arrayed as a respondent.
4. Sri V.V. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant submitted that Lammatha Lakshumunaidu was initially arrayed as A.1 in the First Information Report and that the name of Lammatha Lakshumunaidu was deleted by police at the time of laying of the charge sheet. He further pointed out that before the case was committed to Sessions Court, the learned committal Magistrate issued summons to Lamatha Lakshumunaidu arraying him as A.1. Lammatha Lakshumunaidu would appear to have challenged the same in Crl.R.C.No.1010 of 2007.
On 13.12.2007, Crl.R.C.No.1010 of 2007 was allowed. Orders issuing summons to Lammatha Lakshumunaidu was set aside.
5. On 01.10.2012 the last witness of the prosecution was examined in S.C.No.22 of 2010. At that stage, Crl.M.P.No.341 of 2012 was filed u/s.319 Cr.P.C. to array Lammatha Lakshumunaidu as A.12. The learned Sessions Judge held that there was no evidence against Lammatha Lakshumunaidu to include him as an accused.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that PW.1 spoke about the role of the proposed party in the commission of the offence. It was alleged that PW.1/de facto complainant contested as M.P.T.C.
candidate for Vaddi Thandra as a Congress candidate and that he acted as Poling Agent at Kasipuram poling booth on 02.07.2006. Lammatha Lakshumunaidu was Z.P.T.C. candidate. His brother is A.1 in S.C.No.22 of 2010. It was alleged by PW.1 that on 02.07.2006, which was the date of elections, A.1 to A.11 beat him indiscriminately and abused him with reference to his caste leading to the offence u/s.3 (1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and also the offences under the provisions of IPC. PW.1 also alleged that Lammatha Lakshumunaidu, who went to cast vote on that day, instigated the other accused to indulge in criminal activity and that when A.1 to A.11 were attacking PW.1, PWs.2 to 4 went to the rescue of PW.1.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of PW.1 in this context was corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 to 4. He contended that there is ample evidence to implicate the proposed party as A.12.
The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
[1]
upon Rakesh v. State of Haryana .
The Supreme Court held that cross-examination of the witnesses was not necessary before ordering the addition of any person as accused on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses, since opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses would be available to such a person at the time of trial. The Supreme Court, however, cautioned that the powers vested under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and pointed out that when the prosecution witnesses name certain persons as involved in a serious offence, the Court would be justified in ordering the inclusion of such persons as accused. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that where not only PW.1 but PWs.2 to 4 also spoke about the complicity of the proposed accused in the commission of the offence, it would be appropriate to include the proposed accused as A.12 in the case.
8. Sri T. Praduymna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the proposed party, on the other hand, pointed out that while the incident occurred on 02.07.2006, charge sheet was laid as early as on 11.08.2006. PW.1 was examined on 01.10.2012. However, till the case reached arguments stage, the prosecution did not choose to file a petition to bring the proposed party as accused No.12. He further submitted that the Court considered the evidence in entirety and concluded that there is no ground to implead Lammatha Lakshumunaidu as an accused and that this is not a fit case where powers u/s.319 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised in favour of the prosecution.
9. It would appear that no one apart from PWs.1 to 4 spoke about the complicity of Lammatha Lakshumunaidu in the commission of the offence. Police, after due investigation and recording the statements of PWs.1 to 4 and others considered that there was no evidence against Lammatha Lakshumunaidu and that PWs.1 to 4 merely made allegations owing to political grudges. The learned Sessions Judge observed that where police considered that there was no case against the proposed party and where there is no evidence in addition to the evidence gathered by police, it would be appropriate to reject the contention of the prosecution to include Lammatha Lakshumunaidu as an accused.
10. It is evident that no one spoke about the complicity of Lammatha Lakshumunaidu in the commission of the offence except for PWs.1 to 4. PWs.1 to 4 gave Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements to police and police did not accept the statements in respect of the complicity of Lammatha Lakshumunaidu in the commission of the offence. Added to it, the prosecution is not showing any circumstances to include the proposed party as an accused, barring for the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. First, since the evidence of PW.4 was over, the prosecution ought to have filed petition seeking to implead the proposed party as A.12. Prosecution waited till the completion of the trial before it filed u/s.319 Cr.P.C. Secondly, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 has not been accepted by the Investigating Officer regarding their claim about the proposed party. The prosecution is not able to show any circumstances to accept the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 at this stage.
11. Undoubtedly, PWs.1 to 4 implicated the proposed party. However, in the absence of additional evidence, mere evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is not sufficient when the same was already rejected by police, to hold that prima facie case is made out against the proposed party should be impleaded as one of the accused.
The findings of the trial Court are reasoned and justified and do not deserve to interfere with. I, therefore, see no reasons in this revision.
12. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.
K.G. SHANKAR, J
Date: 22.04.2014 Isn
[1] (2001) 6 SCC 248