GURRAPU BABU RAO Vs. PENDEM SRINIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., questioning the order, dated 31.01.2019, passed in Crl.M.P.No.141 of 2018 in S.C.No.436 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, LRAT-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein and whereunder an application filed by the State to receive the Samsung Model Mobile Phone of the deceased along with SIM card and send the same to F.S.L., for expert opinion, was dismissed.

(2.) A charge sheet came to be filed against respondent Nos.1 to 4/A1 to A4 (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304 (B) of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations in the charge sheet are that due to unbearable harassment made by the accused and as there was no change in their attitude and continuously harassing the deceased Kavitha got vexed on her life and on 22.11.2013 at about 4.00 P.M., she bolted the door of the bed room from inside and committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with the help of a saree. The said charge sheet was taken cognizance as P.R.C., later committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.436 of 2015. During pendency of the said S.C., the State represented by the Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 231 (1) of Cr.P.C. read with 45, 45 (A) of the Indian Evidence Act and 79-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to receive Samsung Model Mobile Phone-GT-S5282, IMEI No.356648/05/19-7245/9 and IMEI No.356649/05/19-7245/7, bearing SIM No.9010170181 and send the same to F.S.L., for Expert's opinion and to retrieve S.M.S. available in the Sent Box. The averments in the said petition discloses that the deceased Kavitha was holding a Cell Phone Make: Samsung Model: GT-S5282, IMEI No.356648/05/197245/9 and IMEI No.356649/05/197245/7, with SIM No.9010170181 and the deceased used to send messages to her friend Gannu Kanakathara, W/o. Vijaya Reddy, regarding the harassment meted out to her and number of messages were stored in the Sent Box message. It is also stated that prior to filing of the charge sheet, the police did not seize the said cell phone in spite of several requests made by the deceased family members, which is very much supportive to the case of prosecution, as such it is just and necessary to produce the said cell phone and to send the same to F.S.L. for expert opinion and to collect/gather the message information, for the fair adjudication of the case and it may prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

(3.) A counter came to be filed by the accused that after framing the charges against the accused, the trial Court fixed the trial schedule from 22.10.2018. All the material witnesses were already examined by the prosecution as P.Ws.1 to 3 and there is no whisper in their evidence to the effect that the deceased had the above mentioned Cell phone or about the deceased sending messages to her friend Gannu Kanakathara, W/o. Vijaya Reddy and the said Gannu Kanakathara, is not even examined or cited as a witness. It is also stated that the Cell Phone was not seized by the Police and even this aspect is not deposed by P.Ws.1 to 3, it is not known on what basis the State filed the present petition. It is further stated that the prayer in the petition virtually contemplates further investigation, which is not contemplated under Section 231 (1) of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that a new case is sought to be set up during the course of trial through a speculative means by sending a material object, which is not before the Court, to an expert and the same cannot be permitted and that the present stage of the case cannot revert back to the stage of gathering evidence, which shall be completed before filing a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., except through the process of filing any supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C.