Sunchu Ashish & Ors. v. The State of Telangana

#2. Sunchu Srinivas, R/o. H.No.254-n53lA, Somidi, Kazipet 3. Sunchu Ramesh, R/o. H.1.1o.254-n53A, Somidi, Kazipet 4. Sunchu Thirupathi, R/o. H.No.254-n53lA, Somidi, Kazipet ...RESPONDENT' ACCUSED Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow this criminal petition by setting aside the Order dt. 241412025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.88 ot 2025 in S.C.No.128 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda and consequently reopen the evidence of Pw-21 for further examination in chbf for marking of FIR in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in S.C.No.128 of 2019 on the file of 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda . This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crin, inal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Asst public Prosecutor Advtlcate for the Petitioner No1 and none appear for the Respondent Nolto4. The Court mader the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No. oF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is liled under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS) by State seeking to set aside the order dated 24.04.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.88 of 2025 in S.C.No.L28 of 2019 passed by learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

#2. Heard Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for petitioner-State. In spite of notice being served, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4.

#3. On the basis of a complaint given by one Sonaboina Saraiah, an Express FIR bearing No.O I /2OL8 came to be registered for offences under Sections 302 and 2OI read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal codb, 1860 (for short 'IPCJ. charge sheet came to be filed on 17.o 7.2018 naming the foltowing persons as accused: i. Sunchu Ashish. ii. Sunchu Srinivas iii. Sunchu Ramesh \.,,-,* 2 JAK, J crlp_7356_2O25 -t .rd Sunchu Thirupathi (all are residents of Kazipet) 4' It is alreged that grudges deveroped in propergr distribur:ion between D 1, D2 (who are the deceased) and respondr-'nts/accused Nos.l to 4. It is further alleged that on o1.o1.2cr18, in between 21:oo hours to 2r:2o hours at House No.25-4-283, Somidi, Kazipet, respondents/accused Nos. I and 2 attackr:d D I and D2- Respondent/accused No. r attacke d, D2 with knife, cut the throat of D2, stabbed her on back on different parts of the body, later respondents/accused Nos.l artd 2 entered into bed room of Dr and respondent/accused No.2 caught hotd of D I and respondent/accused No.l stabbed him indirscriminately for about ten to twenty times and caused instantaneous death. The allegation against respondents/accused Nos.3 and 4 is that they have concealed evidence related to both deaths, thereby causing the disappear€rnce of evidence. 5' A petition i.e., crr-M.p-No.gg of 2o2s in S.c.No.12g of 2ol9 came to be lilecr by the State, represented by the station House ofhr:er, Kazipet porice Station, to reopen the evidence of Pw-21 for further examination-in-chief for marking the FIR. i.) 3 JAK, J crlpJ356-2025 S.C.No. L28 of 2olg was posted on 18.L2.2O24. Evidence of Investigating oflicer (ch. Ajay) was recorded as Pw-21 on 01.05.2024 and further cross examination was held and closed on 13.06.2024. It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecution did not mark the FIR due to over-sight during chief examination and case was coming for reply arguments'

#6. On filing of crl.M.P.No.88 of 2025 in S.C.No.l28 of 2ol9 to reopen the evidence of PW-21, it was requested to the Court to reopen the evidence of P\M-21 for further examination-in- chief and mark the FIR as Exhibit in ?' series and thus to allow the petition. It was prayed that if tl.e court does not reopen the evidence of Pw-2!, it would amount to unfair trial and reopening the evidence of PW-21 would not prejudice the case of respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4 and in fact, it would lead to justice. Learned I Additional sessi,,ons Judge, Hanumakonda, by order dated 24.O4-2O25, held as follows: .5. POINT: Having consid.ered the submissions on both sides and having perused the record, the present petition is Frled after submitting arguments by t]re prosecution as well as by the defence counsel and when the matter adjourned for judgment. since this petition is filed at the fag end of the case and further when the witness/PW2l was examined by the prosecution, the prosecution did not ". -_, _ \,*rr. 4 JAK, J crlp_7356_202S take any measures to a,dpwir*"";;Joij;"T:":,:ff ::*t,l|;;lsrrrrim p re tion or cros s -e:<am ination 3i o*, tt#r" ilX-j ;flT: :om the arguments and when the m*tter posted ,o. ."rrr*'t* l;i;**#:Ti:j"iffi :Jhffirffi x::..I: ma v cause prej ud ice ;iili1:" [:t1, ff]iT .,j fli:-iil: point is answered accordingly., r -'-*-'rlo/ ^r I

#7. karned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for petitione:r/State i.e., complainant submitted that learned I Addition.al Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, erred in not considering the legal position correctly. It is further submitted that it is; 4 64s6 of brutal murder and the respondents are accused Nos. I to 4. It is submitted that the power under Section 3ll of Cr.p.C. is very wide an d the powers are to be exercised for the justice is the criteria and the power can be exercised at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Cr.t,.C. It is further submitted that the ambit of Section 3ll of Cr.l).C. allows the Courts to exercise the power "1 stage.

#8. Learned Assistant public prosecutor placed reliarice on the Honble Apex Court judgment in Varslta Gang v. State of 5 JAK, J crlpJl356-2O25 {n Madhgo Proldesh and othersl and invited attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.31, 36, 40, 41, 48 and 50' g. Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: tt311. Power to summon material witness, or examine Person Present. - Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness' or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. lo. Onperusaloftheord'erdated24.04.2025passedby leaned t Additional sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, it is apparent that the court fett into error in not considering the aspect of "just decision". The trial court holding that the petition is filed at fag end of the case and that witness/Pw-2l was examined by the prosecution and the prosecution did not take any measures to get the FIR exhibited through him and PW-21 was also subjected to cross examination and that after completion of cross examination and after hearing the ' 1zozt119 scc 646 6 JAK, J crlp-7356_2025 arguments and when the matter was posted for reply arguments, Crl.M.P.No.8a of 2025 in S.C.No. 128 of 2O19 is filed and declining to grant relief is not the right approach.

#11. P<twer under Section 3ll of Cr.p.C. is governed by the requirement of justice. The Honble Apex Court held that the statutory provision (i.e., Section 31 I Cr.P.C.) emphasise(s) that the Court is not a hapless bystander in the derailment of justice. It further held that the Court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in tlre realization of justice is manifest. The apparent misconception of triat Court of the law is not only fatal, but the powers u:nder Section 311 of Cr.P.C. were not exercised in a proper manner. L2. In view of the law laid down by the l{onble Apex Court, the ingredients of Section 3l l of Cr.p.C. and the essentiality of evidence of the witness to be examined, along with marking of FIR as an Exhibit through him, indeed are vital for a just decision in the case and reliel as prayed must have been granted keeping in mind the gravity o[ charges. The need for a just decision in a case is the touchstone which must guide the decision m.aking for a Court to recall, reopen, examine and re_ 7 JAK, J ctlpJ356-2025 ,i examine, if evidence is essential to achieve a just decision, this crucial aspect cannot be ignored.

#13. In the circumstances narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 24.04.2025 in Cr1.M.P.No.88 of 2025 in S.C. No.128 of 2OL9 passed by learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, needs to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

#14. The Court of [earned I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, is directed to reopen the evidence of PW-21 for further examination, get the FIR marked as an Exhibit. Needless to state, an opportunity shall be given to the other side to raise objection{s), for a fair and just decision.

#15. For reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. - . -- -'-..--- . r t'F ----..---_-*- Sd/. B. REKHA RANI ISTANT REGI /TTRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER The I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanamkon The lV Additonal First Class mag istrate at Waragnal The Station House Officer, Police Station KaziPet, WarangalCity District Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor Hyderabad (OUT) , High Court for the State of Telangana, at

#5. Two CD CoPies To, 1 2 3 4 AG'DL Vlr HIGH COURT DATED i2710112026 ? n IHE S o O t- 2 B [tB 2(]26 "r( * ORDER CRLP.No.7356 of 2025 CRLP IS ALLOWED q Ja\ ccV' Sr