APHC010552552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10889 OF 2025 Between: Tirumalakonda Prabhu Kumar, S/o. Nagaraju, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Lock Road, Kankipadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi 2. Orsu Padma, W/o. Late Venkata Rao, Aged about 58 years, R/o. D.No.1-20 Dhaniyalapeta, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Common Order dated 25-08- 2025 to the extent of PW-17 which was dismissed in CrI.M.P.No; 475 of 2025 & 476 of 2025 in S.C.No.87 of 2020 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court At Vijayawada: Krishna District r Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MOHAMMAD GHALIB SHAHID Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: r APHC010552552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 [3396] 0if^ THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10889/2025 Between: 1.TIRUMALAKONDA PRABHU KUMAR, S/0. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/0. LOCK ROAD, KANKIPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATH! 2.URUSU PADMA, W/O. LATE VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.1-20 DHANIYALAPETA, GUDIVADA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.MOHAMMAD GHALIB SHAHID Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking to set aside the Common Order, dated 25.08.2025 to the extent of P.W.17 which was dismissed in Crl.M.P.No.475 of 2025 & 476 of 2025 in S.C.No.87 of 2020 on the file of the Mahila Court at Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. Heard Sri Md Galib Shahid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.87 of 2020 wherein he is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner got filed Crl.M.P.No.475 and 476 of 2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall the evidence of P.Ws.16 and 17 for cross-examination. Learned counsel would further submit that both the petitions are partly allowed regarding P.W.16 and dismissed with regard to P.W.17 who is Investigating Officer. Learned counsel would further submit that because of the advocates’ boycott on that day, though the accused appeared before the Court, sought for time, but the learned trial Judge treated the cross-examination as ‘Nil’ since counsel for the accused not present. Thereby, the prosecution evidence was closed. Learned counsel would further submit that now the matter is coming up for arguments. Learned 3 counsGl would furthor submit that as th© potitionor is facing thG sgvgtg chargGs for thG offGncGS undGr SGctions. 302 and 304-B IPC, an opportunity may bo givan to tho patitionar for cross-Gxamination of tha InvGstigating Officar who is a crucial witness to mark contradictions, if any elicited in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the trail Judge rightly dismissed the petitions with regard to P.W.17 and the Court appropriate orders. 4. may pass 5. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the material on record, as rightly stated by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, learned trial Judge rightly dismissed both the petitions since the reason for asking the recall of P.W.17 is not tenable. Though the accused appeared before the Court, he was in helpless condition due to advocates’ boycott, his counsel failed to appear before the court to cross-examine P.W.17. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner is facing the charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC, which are the offences punishable with imprisonment for life/death. 7. In that view of the matter, for giving fair opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the Investigating Officer, this Court is of the considered opinion to set aside the impugned order to the extent of recalling P.W.17. % 4 In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Common Order, dated 25.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.475 and 476 of 2025 is set side to the extent Learned trial Judge is directed to fix a date for appearance of P.W.17 after consultation with the prosecution. On that date, the petitioner has to avail his opportunity to cross-examine P.W.17, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without any recourse to this Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand 8. of P.W.17. closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER \ SECTION 1. the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court At Vijayawada; Krishna District 2. The Station House Officer, Kankipadu Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. 3. One CC to Sri. Mohammad Ghalib Shahid, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies To. PR sree Y \ -1 HIGH COURT DATED:23/10/2025 \ \ ORDER CRLP NO. 10889 OF 2025 gpAWoTfe ^ 2 3 OCT 2025 o J-ri Co <2.\ N^Cuirent Sectio^^a ALLOWING THE CRLP