K SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Crl.P.C. against the Judgment dated 24/11/1998 in SC No.521 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court Hyderabad). The appellants herein moved an application i.e. Crl. M.P. No.6469 of 2004 under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of reception of additional evidence, which are certified copy of Judgment in C.C. No.141 of 1997 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad and also certified copy of deposition of PW1 in the said C.C. No.141 of 1997.

(2.) It is stated in the affidavit that the mother of the deceased, who also figured as PW1 in C.C. No.141 of 1997 filed for offences under Section 406 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on the self same set of facts, against the appellants, had ended in acquittal by Judgment dated 5th August, 2000, it is also stated that during the examination in C.C. No.141 of 1997, PW1 admitted that it is true that the matter had been settled outside the Court before the elders between PW1 and the petitioners-appellants and she had deposed at the instance of local people in Sessions Case No.521 of 1995 and inasmuch as her daughter is no more, she is not interested in prosecuting the accused any more and she had deposed that her daughter had given dying declaration before the Magistrate hastily at her instance.

(3.) The learned counsel placed strong reliance on State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal And another 1987 SC 1321 and also Rambhu and another v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (2) Crl. L.J.2343 and would contend that in the interest of justice these documents may have to be received as additional evidence. The certified copy of the deposition of PW1 in C.C.No.141 of 1997 being the statement of a living person cannot be received as additional evidence by this Court and in the event of this Court being satisfied that PW1 may have to be examined again, in the light of the settlement made by her in C.C.No.141 of 1997, the matter may have to be sent back. Hence, this Court is not inclined to receive the certified copy of the deposition of the living person PW1. But however, as far as the certified copy of the Judgment in C.C.No.141 of 1997 is concerned, this is a judgment made by a competent Criminal court XXII Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad and hence, the same is received as additional evidence and marked as Ex.D.2 in the present appeal.