HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1071 OF 2010 DATE: 23.06.2010 Between: Pidathala Satyam Babu …… Petitioner. And: The State of A.P., rep. by its P.P., High Court of A.P., …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1071 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed questioning order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in S.C.No.34 of 2009 and for direction that reasonable time may be given for the petitioner/accused to get his health improved, so that he will be in a position to face trial by ably instructing his counsel. The petitioner Pidathala Satyam Babu is accused of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. It is a case relating to rape and murder of the victim girl. The offence took place in the year 2007. Previously, this Court by order dated 22.4.2010 in Crl.P.MP No.3653 of 2010 in Criminal Petition No.2391 of 2010 directed the lower court to complete trial in this case within three months period. From the docket orders in Sessions Case No.34 of 2009 of the lower court, it is evident that the accused and his defence counsel refused to cross examine prosecution witnesses on 23.04.2010, 25.04.2010, 27.04.2010, 28.04.2010, 29.04.2010 and 30.4.2010. It is evident that conduct of the accused and the defence counsel in the lower court are towards defeating directions given by this court on 22.04.2010 for completion of trial within three months. On 23.04.2010 as per proceedings sheet/docket sheet of the lower court, the defence counsel left the court wilfully. He did not give up his Vakalat or memo of appearance for the accused. On 26.04.2010 adjournment petition was filed on behalf of the accused and it was dismissed. Even though witnesses were present for the second time they were not cross examined. On 27.04.2010 again adjournment petition was filed and it was dismissed. Inspite of dismissal of the adjournment petition refusing to grant adjournment, the defence counsel did not cross examine the witnesses. On 28.04.2010, on 29.04.2010 and on 30.04.2010 the same drama was repeated by the accused and his counsel in the lower court. Ultimately the case was posted by the lower court for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 10.05.2010, the defence counsel field adjournment petition and it was dismissed by the lower court. When the lower court was about to proceed with examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the defence counsel filed memo stating that he intended to move the High Court for transfer of that case. The defence counsel also got another memo filed through the accused to that effect. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he intended to file transfer application and that he is not mentally and physically prepared to answer the questions. The lower court further noted that the court is unable to proceed with examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Lower court further observed: “In view of direction of Hon’ble High Court, this Court made all the efforts to proceed with trial but due to the non cooperation of accused and his counsel this court unable to proceed further. Counsel of the accused might have taken appropriate steps for t5ansfer at an earliest point of time but in spite of dismissal of petition filed by him he filed a memo for transfer without any reasons and influenced the accused as a result accused is also reluctant to answer 313 Cr.P.C examination through he is in a fit state of mind to answer the same. For the above circumstances this Court has no option but to adjourn the matter. Unless and until this type of attitude on the part of the counsels is curtailed, Courts cannot discharge their duties properly. Patently it is clear that they intended to protract the trial on one or other pretext without following proper procedure but Court is helpless and has no option but to adjourn the matter to 14.6.2010.” The above events in the lower Court are nothing but obstructive tactics adopted by the accused and his counsel in the lower Court. It is contended by the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the accused was not physically and mentally fit, the lower court should have adjourned the matter to a longer date. He filed medical record relating to the accused. In review report dated 20.04.2010, Professor and Head of Department of Neurology, NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad it was noted that the petitioner was having neurological problem below his knees and the petitioner was advised to continue medication and physiotherapy as prescribed. There is absolutely no medical record to show that the accused was not mentally fit to face trial or to answer questions during the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, Presiding Officer of the lower court categorically stated in her order dated 10.05.2010 that the accused is in a fit state of mind to answer the questions put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is entitled to fair trial and that when his physical condition is not good, it may reflect on his mental state also and that therefore, the lower court should have adjourned trial of the case to a longer period. Notings of the lower court in the proceedings sheet/docket sheet undoubtedly disclose that the accused as well as his counsel in the lower court are bent upon in dragging trial of the matter and ultimately to postpone final disposal of the case. For fair trial, not only the Judge but also the Public Prosecutor, the defence counsel, the accused and the witnesses should be parties. Those who are unfair in the proceedings during trial cannot be allowed to say that they are denied fair trial. Simply because the accused is being produced into court hall by lifting him as he is unable to walk due to neurological disorder below his knees, it is no ground for adjournment of the case. When the lower court dismissed adjournment petitions and rejected prayer for adjournment of the case, in all fairness, the defence counsel in the lower court should have proceeded with cross examination of the witnesses examined. It is evident that the accused and his counsel in the lower court are playing game of ‘hide and seek’. In this matter, if at all any thing is to be stated as unfair, it is only conduct of the accused and his counsel in the lower court. Even after dismissal of adjournment petitions, the accused and his counsel did not want to proceed further. Conduct of the accused and his counsel in the lower court undoubtedly suggests that they are behaving in the lower court in that fashion with some hidden agenda. The Public Prosecutor stated that since there is hype in the media about this case, publicity mongers do not want disposal of this case at an early date. If further, it appears to my mind that the accused who is in jail is enjoying all super speciality medical facilities for his neurological problem and that in case the matter is disposed of by the trial court and ends in acquittal, he would not get such super speciality medical facilities at the cost of the State. Without some hidden agenda, the dilatory tactics in the lower court could not have been adopted. It is not as if the lower court is helpless if the accused refuses to answer questions during the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. As per Section 313 (3) Cr.P.C, the accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions or by giving false answers to them. The said sub Section (3) contemplates a case of refusal to answer the questions put to the accused under that Section. I see absolutely no merits as well as bonafides in this revision petition. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:23.06.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1071 OF 2010 Date:23.06.2010 Gk.