The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.4 in S.C.No. 1 91 of 2019 on the file of the Court of ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, pending final disposal of the main Revision Case. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents namely i) Statements of witnesses L.W.1 to '1 3, recorded under FIR No.22812016 and 2) FIR No.22812016, dated 30/10/20.t6 along with complaint of Hussaini Alam Police Station, Hyderabad as additional material papers. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Shiva Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Sri E. Ganesh, Additional public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER Y -) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVTSToN CASE No.786 of 2o24 ORDER: The present Criminal Rerrision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1674 of 2023 in S.C.No.191 of 2Ol9 on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. M.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel the petitioner/ accused No.4 and appearing for Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State and perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a report before police Hussainailam alleging that on 03.10.2016 when father of t}:e de facto complainant was proceeding to his printing press in his Maruthi Van, accused No.l along with other accused attacked on his father with swords, pulled him out of the car and all of them have beat him indiscriminately with swords, and his lather sustained bleeding injuries and his 2 head was almost cut off and hanging to the body and skull was completely opened, and the de facto complainant saw the above incident from terrace of his house, and immediatr:ly shifted his father to hospital r,r,here he was declared as brought dead. Based on the aforesaid report, police have registered a case in Crime No.228 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 747, 148, 3O2, 120(b), 212 rlw 149 IPC against al1 the accused persons and after due investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 19. The Committal Court took cognizance against the accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 19 for the offences under Sections 147, 148,3O2, l20 (b) r/w 149 IpC and Section 27(3) of Arms Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/ accused No.4 is a student as on the date of the alleged incident. He was not present at the scene of offence. The CCTV footage also does not disclose the identification of the petitioner along with other accused. He further submitted that the petitioner had arr examination on the following day of the said crime arrd at no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner had participated in the said crime along with other Y J accused. Therefore, he seeks to allow the present criminal revlslon case

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State submitted that all the accused including the petitioner herein have conspired together to eliminate the deceased and in execution of their plan, they have attacked the father of the de facto complainant in such a brutal way by beheading him. As per the statements of witnesses and other material, tLre pima facie material towards involvement of the petitioner ' in commission of offence is well established' Hence seeks to dismiss the present criminal revision case.

6. As could be seen from the material available on record, it discloses that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no whisper about the role of the petitioner herein in the alleged commission of offences. There are no specific allegations attributed against the petitioner either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. None of the witnesses spoke about the specific overt acts of the petitioner in their statements recorded by the police under Section 16 I of the Cr. P. C' I I \ There u'as no mention of the name of the petitioner in the complaint and further in the entire charge sheet also there was no mention of the participation or involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Except the. plea that the petitioner l-rerein is the son of accused No. 1, no basis to prove his involvement either in the commission of offence or conspiracv for commission of the offence. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a student and he is pursuing his studies and he is no way concerned with the alleged offences, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned ord er.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/ accused No.4 in S.C.No.191 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand ciosed /ITRUE COPY// SD/. INAGALAKSHMT, rNT',*:':''l*11 'il ''lrr",,o* oFFlcER To, VII any)

1. The ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad(with records' if z inl'strrion House Officer, Hussainialam Police Station' Hyderabad 5. i*" dCr t" the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at + One CC to Sri M. Shiva Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. [OUTI HIGH COURT DATED: 0810112025 \ I ORDER CRLRC.No.786 of 2024 ) 2 Z fiA,t 2025 \(. ( z t ts spArcHgO I ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C. / / 7 / I I