G CHALAPATHI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 20.12.2012 passed in Crl. MP No. 168 of 2012 in SC No. 136 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed under Section 319 Cr. P.C. The petitioner is the father of deceased-Parvathi. She was a student of 10th class and was aged about 16 years on the date of the incident. One Raghavendra proposed to marry the deceased-Parvathi. But, the deceased-Parvathi was not willing for the marriage and she was inclined to continue her studies. On 7.7.2009 when the complainant was not in the house, the deceased-Parvathi was taken by A1 B. Marikuripalle Chittamma. Subsequently, her whereabouts were not known. The complainant presented a report before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gorantla Police Station, Anantapur District, suspecting the involvement of A1-Chittemma, A2-Boya Dasari Anand and four other persons viz., Raghavendra, Raghu, Lakshmi Narayana and Govindu. Subsequently, the dead body of Parvathi came to be traced. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against A1-B. Marikuripalli Chittemma and A2 - Boya Dasari Anand. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penugonda took the charge-sheet on file as P.R.C., and committed the case to Sessions Division, Anantapur District. The learned Sessions Judge, took the case on file and made over the same to Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. During the course of trial, prosecution examined the complainant as PW 1 and moved Crl. MP No. 168 of 2012 under Section 319 Cr. P.C., to summon G. Lakshminarayana and Adilakshmamma to take trial along with A1 and A2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not made out any material to summon G. Lakshminarayana and Adilakshmamma to take trial along with A1 and A2 and thereby proceeded to dismiss the petition filed under Section 319 Cr. P.C., by order dated 20.12.2012. Hence, this revision by the complainant.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that PW1 evidence is sufficient to summon G. Lakshminarayana and Adilakshmamma to take trial along with A1 and A2. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh v. State of Haryana, 2001 6 SCC 248, Lal Suraj v. State of Jharkhand, 2009 2 SCC 696, Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas, 2009 14 SCC 25and Sarojben Ashwin kumar Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2012 1 SCC(Cri) 867 and judgment of this Court in Gurram Bhaskar v. State of A.P., 2012 2 ALD(Cri) 29 .