KURAMDASU SANJEEVA RAO SAJJI, E.G.DIST. & 2 OTHRS v. P P HYD

1. P P HYD, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana & the State of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the the affidavit circumstances stated CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased tofiled under Sectio 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.A.No.12/2012, dated 15.07.2014 on the file of the court fo III Addl. District and Sessions judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada confirmed in support of 2 by the learned III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First cLass, at Kakinada in C.C.no.389/2007, dated 20.12.2011. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2503 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy as well as typed copy of the calendar and Judgment in C.C.no.389 of 2007 dated 20.12.2011 on the file of the court of III Addl. Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2550 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner / Accused on bail by suspending the execution of sentence imposed in Crl.A.No. 12/2012, dated 15.07.2014 on the file of the court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada confirmed by the learned III Addl. Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada in CC.No.389/2007, dated 20.12.2011 pending disposal of the Crl.RC IA NO: 3 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 3254 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Amendment the name of the petitioner as Vadrevu Rajesh instead of adrevu Ravi which was mentioned in Crl.RC.No.1558/2014 and also in bail order of this Hon'ble Court passed in Crl.Rc.MP.No.2550/2014 in Crl.RC.No.1558/2014, dated 25.07.2014 Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. T S N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1558 of 2014 The Court made the following Order: The Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the judgment and of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court in Calendar Case No.389 of 2007, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal by the learned Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.12 of 2012 under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the petitioners for a period of 6 months each. All three petitioners are arrayed as accused in the Calendar Case which was arising out of three different crime cases.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court suffers illegality. He submits that the petitioners, who convicted under Section 411 of IPC for alleged possession of stolen motor cycle. He submits that the report before the police by PW4 suggests that the alleged motor cycle was stolen on 13.01.2007, thereafter the report was filed before the police on 07.02.2007, there are about 25 days delay in lodging FIR, there are no reasonable explanation by the prosecution regarding such inordinate delay. He submits that during the course of investigation in the crime case, it has been alleged by the police that on 25.09.2007 the police has apprehended all the 4 petitioners with the motor cycle. The statement of the mediator PW5 as well as the statement of Investigating Officer of this case are different regarding the recovery and arrest of the petitioners. He submits that though mediator stated that on the fateful day, the petitioners after saw the police personnel tried to run away, but apprehended by the police, Investigating Officer has deposed that all the accused persons/petitioners tried to escape on their motor cycle. He further submits that the investigation of the police and the mediators report cannot be believed. He submits that the issue was raised before the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court, but they have not considered the materials on record.

3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor raised an objection and submits that the police have placed on all relevant witnesses as PWs before the learned trial Court and on the basis of the evidence on record the learned trial Court has recorded the conviction. He further submits that the learned appellate Court has also gone through the material on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned appellate Court.

4. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.

5. Perused the order of learned appellate Court. Lower Court Record is placed on record. Perused the judgment of Calendar Case passed by 5 the learned trial Court. It appears that in the instant case there are six PWs including Investigating Officer. Several documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. Some material objects were also marked. It appears that among the material objects some gold ornaments as well as one motor cycle was seized and placed before the learned trial Court, thereby they are marked as material objects 1 to 5. PW1, PW2 and PW4 are the persons, who gave respective reports to the police. PW3 and PW5 are the mediators (seizure witness) and PW6 is Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the charge sheet filed by the police in connection with this case wherein it was noted that the motor cycle was recovered from the possession of petitioner No.2. He also submitted that there are discrepancy in the statement of PW5 and PW6. This submission prompted this Court to go through the papers in the Trial Court Record. On perusal of Trial Court Record, it appears that the police after conclusion of investigation had submitted charge sheet. The charge sheet was not filed in a particular Form. The charge sheet does not contain the particular charge sheet number and date as required under law. On plain perusal of the charge sheet, it appears that the charge sheet was submitted by one Sub-Inspector of Police, Town, C.C.S. Kakinada. According to the provisions of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. I (corresponding Section 193 of B.N.S.S), charge sheet has to be forwarded to the Magistrate with the signature of officer in-charge of the police station. The charge sheet of this case was submitted by the 6 Investigating Officer and in the charge sheet it was not mentioned whether he was consulted with his senior prior to submission of charge sheet. As per Section 173 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 193 of B.N.S.S) dictated that a final report of the police after completion of the investigation must be submitted by the Investigating Officer duly forwarded by Officer in-charge of the police station. The knowledge of S.H.O. of police station is so much relevant in a crime case that if an investigation is conducted by the direction of State Government through a superior than S.H.O. of the police station, then also consultation and further investigation of S.H.O. is required in that case as provided under Section 173(3) of Cr.P.C.

6. Further more, on thorough perusal of the Lower Court Record, it appears that during the course of investigation, police have visited the place of occurrence, made a rough sketch with index and also placed the mediator report. On perusal of the mediator report it appears that mediator report was also not filed in form but the mediator report contains the entire statement, where not only the statement of mediator but also so called confessional statement by the accused persons were recorded. Admittedly on the day i.e., on 25.09.2007, the petitioners/ accused persons are in the custody of police. The confession or statement of accused persons under the police custody cannot be used to incriminate them at trial as provided under Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act. In this 7 particular case, the mediators reports are marked as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. The learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court has not gone into the entire facts that the Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 cannot be used in a trial against the present petitioners, statements are recorded whether confessional or otherwise while they were in the police custody. There are no other witnesses to justify the allegation made in the charge sheet against the present petitioners, except mediators. Mediator statements cannot be marked or justify conviction of petitioners. Considering the same, the entire investigation appears to be perforated. The learned trial Court and learned appellate Court should not had acted over the same investigation to record the conviction against the present petitioners. Reasons thereof, in my view, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned appellate Court appears to be illegal.

7. Thus, the instant Criminal Revision Case got merit and the same is hereby allowed. The judgments of conviction and orders of sentence against petitioners passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court are hereby set aside. The petitioners are acquitted and set at liberty. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the Petitioners before the learned Trial Court be returned by following due procedure. The bail bonds of Petitioners, if any, shall stand closed after expiry of six (06) 8 months as per section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding Section 481 of BNSS). As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:25.02.2026 9 176 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1558/2014 Dated: 25.02.2026