Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa declined to interfere with a sessions court order that reopened a murder trial even after evidence was closed and the matter had been reserved for judgment and dismissed the accused persons’ challenge to that order. The case concerns allegations that the accused assaulted the victim with sticks during a dispute in agricultural fields, after which he underwent treatment at multiple hospitals and later died. The Court noted that when neither side seeks to examine a witness whose testimony is necessary for a just decision, the trial court may recall or re-examine such a witness at any stage under Section 311 CrPC read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, including post-closure and at the judgment stage.

The crime was first registered for attempt to murder and later altered to murder after the victim’s death. During trial, witnesses referred to different hospitals where the victim was treated and where death allegedly occurred, leading to discrepancies in the evidence.

Also Read: Litigants Approaching Court After Prolonged Delay Cannot Demand Similar Relief As A Right Solely On Others’ Success: Supreme Court

After completion of evidence and arguments, and after the matter was reserved for judgment, the trial court noticed that crucial medical records and hospital intimations had not been formally proved and that the treating medical officer had not been examined. Invoking its powers to summon additional evidence, the trial court reopened the case. The accused contended that this amounted to filling lacunae and caused prejudice, while the State maintained that the evidence was essential to determine the cause of death.

The Court observed “there is a discrepancy in respect of the hospital, in which, the deceased succumbed to injuries.” It recorded that “It is also the duty of the defence counsel to confront the witnesses with their police statements so as to prove the contradictions in the form of material omissions and bring them on record. When the witnesses were deposing something contrary to what they had stated before the police in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to bring to the notice of the witnesses and confront them with the same even without declaring them as hostile. It is also the duty of the presiding officer to put relevant questions to those witnesses in exercise of his powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Section 162 of the CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the record of the police investigation. Being a case of murder and as the evidence was not free from doubt, the Trial Judge ought to have acquainted himself, in the interest of justice, with the important material and also with what the only important witnesses of the prosecution had said during the police investigation. Nothing in Section 162 CrPC to prevent a Trial Judge, as distinct from the prosecution or the defence, from putting to prosecution witnesses the questions otherwise permissible, if the justice obviously demands such a course.”

The Court observed “… every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery of truth. The Court is not a mere spectator and is duty-bound to ensure that all material evidence necessary for a just decision is brought on record. The Court must not be deprived of the benefit of any valuable evidence. It is absolutely necessary that the Court must be apprised of the best evidence available. In a case where neither party is interested in examining a person as a witness yet the Court feels that the evidence of such a person is necessary for a just decision, the Court though cannot compel either the prosecution or the defence to call a witness, but it can invoke its power under Section 311 CrPC, read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Thus, the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act are wide and can be exercised even after closure of evidence, including at the stage when the matter is reserved for judgment.”

On the issue of prejudice, the Court observed “reopening of the matter for adducing such evidence, definitely, will not cause any prejudice to either side, since both parties will have a right and opportunity to examine and re-examine any witness on these aspects.”

Also Read: State Largesse Cannot Be Granted To One Person To Create Monopoly: Andhra Pradesh High Court APSRTC Tender For Enabling One Person To Secure Multiple Shops

The Court directed “the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The Director General of Police is directed to issue suitable instructions to all Investigating Officers dealing with cases involving offences punishable under Section 302 IPC (103 of BNS) to ensure that all material facts and circumstances leading to the incident and the events preceding the death of the deceased are thoroughly collected, verified, and placed on record.”

“The Investigating Officers shall ensure timely collection and proper marking of hospital intimations and out-post police intimations, complete medical records, including case sheets etc., statements of treating doctors, and clear documentation establishing the chain of events from the time of injury till death. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this order to the A.P. State Judicial Academy for information and for training purposes as may be deemed appropriate.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners:  Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate

For the Respondents:  Sri Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, Advocate; Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Seelam Nagamuni Naidu & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another

Neutral Citation: APHC010558402024

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 8982 of 2024

Bench: Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa