Narra Srilakshmi vs Kaza Suresh Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 624 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY

              Civil Revision Petition No.1929 of 2021

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India assailing the order dated 22.10.2021 in IA

No.444 of 2021 in OS No.132 of 2010 on the file of the VIII

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The application in IA No.444 of 2021 is filed under Order-13,

Rule-3 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for

short 'CPC') praying to reject the irrelevant and inadmissible

documents, such as statements of LWs.1 & 2 in FIR No.986 of 2008

and confessional statement of accused, which were tagged along with

Ex.B.2-charge sheet.

3. The trial Court after hearing both sides and on careful analysis

of the facts allowed the application rejecting the statements of LWs.2

& 3 and confessional statement of accused in Crime No.986 of 2008

tagged with Ex.B.2-charge sheet. Aggrieved by the same, the

respondent/first defendant has filed this civil revision petition on the

following grounds:

a) that the Court below ought to have seen that the

application is filed by the plaintiff through his power

of attorney holder and it is not maintainable;

AVRJ CRP No.1929 of 2021

b) that the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.2 and he

was cross-examined by the first defendant and in the

cross-examination, Exs.B.1 & B.2 were marked after

confrontation;

c) that the application is only filed to protract the

litigation, that too after completion of the cross-

examination of DWs.1 & 2;

d) that the Court below ought to have seen that there

cannot be a charge sheet without the list of statements

of witnesses and the plaintiff has filed to reject the

statements of LWs.2 & 3 and confessional statement

of accused; and

e) that the principles laid in the judgments that are relied

on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff are not applicable

to the facts of the present case and prayed for

dismissal of the application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/first defendant. In spite

of service of notice on the respondent/plaintiff, he remained absent

without any representation. Perused the material placed on record.

5. The first contention of the petitioner/first defendant is that the

application in IA No.444 of 2021 is filed through the power of

attorney holder of the plaintiff, which cannot be accepted. Further,

the cross-examination of plaintiff as PW.3, Exs.B.1 to B.3 are marked

AVRJ CRP No.1929 of 2021

after confronting the same and that the confessional statement of

accused, statements of LWs2 & 3 are part of Ex.B.2-charge sheet in

Crime No.986 of 2008 and they cannot be detached, read separately

from the contents of the charge sheet. As per the order impugned, the

record shows that Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked in the cross-

examination of PW.3, who is the plaintiff in the original suit.

6. The law is well-settled that though the charge sheet is marked,

the statements of witnesses annexed to the charge sheet, who are cited

as LWs.2 and 3 and the confessional statement of accused are subject

to the principles of relevancy and admissibility under relevant

provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Merely because, the charge sheet

is marked as Ex.B.2, such statements of witnesses who are cited as

LWs.2 & 3 cannot be marked, in view of the principles laid in the

Sections 32 & 33 of Indian Evidence Act. By any stretch of

imagination, even if they are marked as part of Ex.B.-2 charge sheet,

they are inadmissible, as the very purpose of such statements recorded

in the course of investigation is only to help the accused to contradict

the witnesses during trial before the criminal Court. In criminal

proceedings, such statements are only used for marking contradictions

and omissions while recording the evidence of such witness before the

Court and such statements recorded by the police in the course of

investigation are inadmissible, more so, in the absence of any

evidence to the effect that such witnesses who are cited as LWs.2 & 3

either surviving available to the court or not.

AVRJ CRP No.1929 of 2021

7. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PW.3 and as per the

material available on record, it is clear that the statements of LWs.2

and 3 and confessional statement of accused in Crime No.986 of 2008

were only tagged to Ex.B.2-charge sheet and they were not confronted

to PW.3 nor they were marked independently. In such circumstances,

the same cannot be considered as evidence and they are liable to be

rejected.

8. The trial Court after recording the principles laid in Srinivasa

Builders v. A. Jangareddy (died) per LRs1 and in Chaganti Venkata

Bhaskar v. C. Chandrra Shekar Reddy2 has rightly rejected the

irrelevant part of the statements of witnesses annexed to Ex.B.2-

charge sheet, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned and

it is sustainable.

9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming

the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 in IA No.444 of 2021 in OS

No.132 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Considering the fact that the

original suit is in the year 2010 and evidence on behalf of the plaintiff

is concluded, DWs.1 & 2 are examined on behalf of defendants, the

Court below shall make every endeavour to dispose of the original

suit, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. Both the parties to the suit shall cooperate with the trial Court

2016 (2) ALT 321

AIR 2010 AP 155

AVRJ CRP No.1929 of 2021

for expeditious disposal of the original suit, as directed. However, in

the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this revision petition,

shall stand closed.

_______________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.

Date: 14.02.2022 Isn