INTURI NARAYANA Vs. STATE OF A.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed challenging the Order dtd. 8/2/2024 in Crl.M.P.No.168 of 2024 in S.C. No.63 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

(2.) The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kurnool filed a charge sheet as against 2nd respondent/A.1 and another, and the same was taken on file as S.C.No.63 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The Sessions Case is at the stage of arguments. At that stage, State filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.168 of 2024 in the said Sessions Case, under Sec. 311 CrPC seeking to recall P.W.4-Dr.Allam Vasanth Kumar, P.W.7-Dr.S.Narasimha Reddy and P.W.17-D.V.Ramana Moorthy for further examination for the purpose of marking documents on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order, dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petition is preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 2nd respondent/A.1 is charged for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 302 and 494 IPC for committing murder of his wife; that during the course of trial, certain important documents could not be marked through the prosecution witnesses; that P.Ws.4 and 7 are Doctors, who issued medical certificates dtd. 14/3/2015 and 30/3/2015 respectively, and for the purpose of marking those documents, which is germane for establishing the case of prosecution, recalling of P.Ws.4 and 7 is necessary. He further submitted that on a letter addressed by P.W.17-investigating officer to the Mandal Educational Officer, Holagunda mandal (L.W.12), employment details of Smt.B.Parvathi, second wife of 2nd respondent/A.1, and her Aadhar card were secured and marking of those documents is necessary to establish the relationship between them as wife and husband.