IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2665 of 2010 DATE:11.06.2010 Between: Sri Ram Dhanunjaya @ Chinna Babu …… Petitioner/Accused. And: Ginjupalli Madhu and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2665 of 2010 ORDER: The Petitioner/A-1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120-B and 149 I.P.C in Crime No.213/2009 of Penuganchiprolu Police Station, Krishna District. It is alleged that not only A-1 physically participated in commission of the offence but also A-1 is one of the conspirators for commission of this offence. Now, the petitioner/A-1 is seeking quashing of F.I.R in Crime No.213/2009 on several grounds. Originally the local police investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet before the Magistrate under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. There is no dispute that the said charge sheet was returned with certain objections. It is stated by the Public Prosecutor that the charge sheet was returned for want of F.S.L. report and after complying with the said objection, the charge sheet was represented before the Magistrate. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that after the charge sheet was returned by the Magistrate, it was not represented before the Magistrate by the local police. At this stage, it may be noted that A-1’s brother happens to be member of legislative assembly(M.L.A) from Jaggaiahpet constituency and he belongs to Telugu Desam Party(T.D.P). There is no dispute that the said brother of A-1 by name Sriram Raja Gopal @ Tatayya met the Honourable Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and other leaders and also higher officers in the Police Department representing that his brothers and T.D.P activists who were innocent persons were falsely implicated in this case. In the report given by A-1’s brother, it was also prayed that investigation of the case may be transferred to Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D). Thereupon, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru addressed letter dated 15.12.2009 to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad requesting to issue necessary instructions to C.I.D authorities to take up further investigation in this case in the interest of public justice, as scientific, systematic and thorough investigation, analysis of telephone call details and banking transactions are required in this case. It is stated that further investigation of this crime was taken up by C.I.D. Thereupon not only the local police as well as C.I.D police filed memos before the Magistrate to transfer the case file from that Court to designated C.I.D Court at Vijayawada. It is stated by the Public Prosecutor that having regard to the said memos, the Magistrate has physically handed over the entire record along with the represented charge sheet for being handed over to the designated C.I.D Court at Vijayawada. The said exercise was done prior to the Magistrate taking cognizance of the final report/charge sheet filed by the local police. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as per para-1 of the letter dated 15.12.2009 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police addressed to the Director General of Police, complicity of A-1 in this case was ruled out. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor drew attention of this Court to page-3 of the same letter, wherein it was noted as follows: “L.Ws 1 to 5 spoke that A-1 directly participated in the offence hacking the deceased with an axe on his right hand, whereas some of the witnesses did not speak about the direct participation of A-1. However, apart from the above overt acts of A-1, there is sufficient evidence about the involvement of not only A-1 but also A-22 to A-25 in the conspiracy of the murder of Veeraiah” Therefore, it cannot be said that the Deputy Inspector General of Police ruled out complicity of A-1 in this case. 3) It may be noted at this stage that letter of the D.I.G of police dated 15.12.2009 is prior to filing of final report by the police before the Magistrate in January, 2010. 4) Pointing out certain contents of confessional report dated 04.11.2009 said to have been given by A-2 to the police, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even as per A-2’s case before the police, A-1 did not participate either in commission of the offence or in the conspiracy relating to the offence. Apart from evidentiary value of the said confessional statement of A-2 said to have been made before the police officer after his arrest, this Court at this stage cannot place any reliance on the same. This only a piece of evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation. Result of the investigation depends on totality of pieces of evidence collected by the investigating officer during investigation and belief of the investigating officer in such result or conclusion. It would be too dangerious either for the prosecution or for the Court to grant relief on the basis of a confession statement of a co-accused, because there is every possibility of some of the accused sidelining the investigation or distorting the incident and circumstances prior to the incident. So, no relief can be granted to A-1 on the basis of alleged confessional statement of A-2. 5) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that having not satisfied with investigation of the local police and final report of the local police, the matter was entrusted to C.I.D. On the other hand, it is contended by the Public Prosecutor that the matter was entrusted to C.I.D for making further investigation on the representation given by A- 1’s brother who is M.L.A of Jaggaiahpet to the Government and not because investigation made by the local police till now is not believable or untrustworthy. As pointed out earlier, from the letter of Deputy Inspector General of Police, the local police are definite in their conclusion that A-1 had not only participated in commission of the offence, but also in the conspiracy preceding it. Simply because the matter is entrusted to C.I.D, no one can jump to the conclusion that the previous investigation made by local police is either false or untrustworthy. Cases are entrusted to special investigating agency like C.I.D because it is stated to be equipped with scientific, systematic and thorough investigation tools. It is stated by the public prosecutor that as per final report/charge sheet filed by the local police before the Magistrate, A-1 was also charge sheeted along with other accused. Having regard to the conclusion arrived at by the local police and having regard to further deep investigation to be made by C.I.D, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for quashing F.I.R in this crime against A-1. 6) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A-1 was given stay of arrest during pendency of this petition and that it may be extended even during investigation of this crime by C.I.D. But, this Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to A-1 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the above facts and conclusions, this Court is of the opinion that interim stay of arrest of A-1 cannot be extended beyond life of this petition. 7) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 11, 2010 ksh