VEMULA RAMESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Record discloses that S.C.No.134 of 2019 pending before the learned Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Vijayawada is for the offences under Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, alternatively under Sec. 376(2)(i) I.P.C., alternatively under Sec. 376(2)(k) I.P.C., alternatively under Sec. 325 read with 376(2)(i) I.P.C.; under Sec. 314 of SCs and STs (POA) Act and Sec. 321(w)(i) of SCs and STs (POA) Act and under Sec. 417 I.P.C.

(2.) Necessary charges were framed and evidence of PWs.1 to 7 for prosecution was recorded and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked for prosecution. The incriminating evidence available on record was offered to the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Responding to some of the questions, the accused had stated that he had the evidence in the form of videos and call records to prove his innocence. He was invited to tender his evidence in defence. He examined DWs.1 and 2. It is thereafter he thought of testifying as one of the witnesses in defence and therefore filed a petition under Sec. 315 Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the trial Court to permit him to testify as one of the witnesses. He filed another petition seeking permission to receive electronic evidence in the form of whatsapp screen shots, photographs, voice call data, call recordings, video with audio, SMS in a form of CD or pen-drive. He filed another application to reopen the evidence for defence. State filed its counter alleging that these are frivolous petitions filed to cause delay in completion of the proceedings and they were filed subsequent to Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. examination and they are devoid of valid reasons.

(3.) The learned trial Court took up all those three petitions as Crl.M.P.Nos.910, 911 and 912 of 2023. After hearing both sides and after considering the material, it dismissed the applications by a common order. The reasons afforded by it are: