Prosecution Not Limited To Witness List Filed With Chargesheet, May Examine Other Witnesses To Help Court Arrive At 'Just Decision': Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the prosecution is not limited to the list of witnesses filed along with the charge sheet, and can examine any other witness outside of the list, if, it helps the Court arrive at a just decision.

“The list of witnesses/documents filed with the Police report (Charge sheet) filed by the police is only a practice. It does not prevent the Prosecution or Magistrate/Court from examining any other witnesses or receiving documents if they help the Court to arrive at a just decision in the case.”

Justice B.V.L.N Chakravarthi also referred to Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with the procedure to be followed in a summons case, triable by a Magistrate, where an accused is not convicted under section 252 or 253 of the CrPC (where the accused pleads guilty). The Bench observed that section 254(1) requires the Court to take all evidence put forward by the prosecution into consideration while deciding a case.

“Section 254 (1) CrPC., would speak that if the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 252 or 253, he/she shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defense. So, it speaks that all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution be received during the trial.”

The Bench also noted that sections 242 and 231 of the CrPc, stipulate similar procedures to be followed while dealing with trial of warrant cases by Magistrates and trials before the Court of Sessions, respectively.

“Therefore, in my considered opinion, as long as the trial in sessions cases, warrant cases or summons cases is at the stage of evidence for prosecution, as laid down in the above sections, the Sessions Judge or Magistrate can take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.”

The petition was filed challenging the order passed by a Magistrate, wherein, the interlocutory application of the prosecution to summon witnesses, for cross-examination, was allowed. The claim of the prosecution was that the two witnesses that were deemed to be summoned were both eyewitnesses to the crime (under section 304-A) and were left out from the list of witnesses due to over-sight, although their statements were recorded under section 161 of Crpc during the course of the investigation.

The petitioner/ accused before the Court however contended that this was just an attempt on the part of the prosecution who were trying to fill lacunas in the case, by adding witnesses at a subsequent stage.

The Bench emphasized that the Court is duty-bound to find out the truth and that trial is conducted fairly. “The object of every investigation of trial is not only to administer and secure the ends of justice but also to find out the truth......The duty of a Public Prosecutor is not merely to secure the conviction of the accused at all costs but to place before the Court whatever evidence is in the possession of the Prosecution, whether it be in favour of or against the accused and to leave the Court to decide upon all such evidence.”

Justice Chakravarthi noted that no prejudice would be caused to the accused if the prosecution provided the accused with the witness statements along with other documents that would allow the accused to cross-examine the witnesses.

Accordingly, it dismissed criminal petition.

Counsel for petitioner: Srinivasa Rao Velivela

Counsel for Respondent: Y.Jagadeeswara Rao Special Asst PP.

Case Title: Pattivada Balaji vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.

Case no.: CrlP 1499 of 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order