The High Court · 2025

The State of Telanqana.. represented by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IANO:1OF2 024 Petition under section 52B of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High courr may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in S. c. No. 366 of 2o23on the file of the lVletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, pending disposar of the main crr. R. c. counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. sriratha rep. sri srinivasa Rao Boddururi counsel for the Respondent: sri E. Ganesh, Assistant pubtic prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER t, ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'VENUGOPAL 1 f2 24 E s N R I AL Heard Mrs.Srilatha, learned counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E'Ganesh' learned assistant public prosecutor representing learned public prosecutor for 1:he State/ respondent.

2. Challenge in this criminal revision case' filed under Sections 438 &' 442 BNSS and Sections :i97 and 401 Cr'P'C' is to the order dated 25'06'2024 passed in Crl.MP No.3376 of 2023 in SC No'366 of 2023 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge' Hyderabad wherein and where under the prayer of the petitioner herein/accused No'3 and accused No 2 for their discharge under Section 227 of Cr'P'C' was rejected'

3. SC No.366 of 2023 is a case registered for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder' and rash driving in drunken condition with abetment punishable under Sections 304(II)' 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and section 185 of MV Act against the petitioner/A3 and hvo r>thers' The predominant allegation against the accused is that on the intervelling night of 5(6.77.2OZLat about 1'30 am', while accused No'1 was driving his car in a drunken condition, while accused Nos'2 and 3 sat in the said car t)ven knowing that accused No.1 was in drunken condition and he should rrot drive the vehicle, which may cause endanger to harm accused No'1 as well as to accused , l I 2 Nos.2 and 3 and any other person on the road, accused No.1 drove the car and proceeded towards KBR park from panjagutta in high speed and when they reached near Road No.2, Banjara Hiils in front of white crow crothing shop, accused No.l dashed two pedestrians, who were crossing the road due to which, the pedestrians feil down on the other side of the road and the accused Nos'2 and 3 encouraged accused No.1 to flee away from the spot. Accordingry, basing on the compraint rodged by one Ram pravesh, uncle of one of the victim/deceased viz.Ayodhya Rai, compraining that the driver of porsche car bearing No.TS 08 HR 3344 hit his nephew and his friend viz. Debendra Kumar in a rash and negrigent manner due to which by sustaining serious injuries they both died on the spot and the said driver fled away from the spot, Crime No'900 of 2021 dated o6.L2.2o21was registered by the porice of Banjara Hi[s. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge_sheet was laid. 4' During the course of proceedings before the triar Court, the accused Nos.2 and 3 fired crr.Mp No.3376 of 2023 in sc No.366 of 2023 under section 227 of cr.P'c. seeking their discharge from the said case mainry contending that there is no evidence against accused Nos.2 and 3 and fufthermore to allege that they have abetted accused No.1 either to fled away from scene or to screen the evidence and that they were onry inmates of the vehicre, there was no common intention to cause the aleged incident and that there is no prima- facie case made out against them. Further, they are not responsibre for the accident, they did not drive the vehicle and that mere travelling with somebedy, _ i I /i () who drove the vehicre in a rash and negrigent manner in a drunken condition, does not make them liable for the accident caused by the driver as there was no common intention to commit such offence and that the accident 'rccurred in the spur of moment. Conducting trial against accused Nos'2 and 3 is nothing but a futile exercise since there is no prima-facie case established against them'

5. The respondent/State vehemently opposed the said application mainly contending that there is ample evidence against the accused llroving the presence of the accused persons at the scene of offence and their tnvolvement in the incident, after collecting ample evidence only the charqe-she'3t has been laid and that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim of discharge, ftrll-fledged trial only would reveal the true set of facts and that the investigation done by the investigating officer revealed a prima-facie case against the accttsed'

6. The trial CoLlrt, upon scrutinizing the material put-foth bef'lre it by the prosecuting agency, holding that the accused Nos'1 and 2 confessed and admitted that though accused No'1 should not drive the vehic|: due to his consumption of alcohol, accused Nos'2 and 3 sat in the car driverr by accused No.1 and when the accident occurred' accused Nos'2 and 3 encouraged accused No.l to flee away from the scene of offence rather tharr to help the injured persons and hence, they tried to swap or disappear the evidence attracting the offence under Section 201 of IPC and that there is a prima-facie casemadeoutagainsttheaccused,dismissedthesaidapplication. j&.&& 4 7' Aggrieved by the said findings of the triar cour! the petitioner/accused No'3 preferred the present criminar revision case mainry contending that the trial Court without there being any iota of evidence against them hacl erroneousry dismissed the petition fired by the accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking their discharge, accused No.3 has no role in the alleged offence, placing reliance on the confessionar statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 and uncorroborated statements of prosecution witnesses to impricate the petitioner/A3 for the offence of abetment is not permissibre under section 25 0f Indian Evidence Act, (23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and on the other hand it raises a benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner, the triar court failed to notice the physicar features of scene of occurrence and the cruciar fact that at the time of accident not even a singre eye witness was present and LWs.1 and 3 are planted by the police to strengthen their case. 8' Further contended tha! mere travering with somebody who is known to him as a friend does not attract those sections as there was no common intention to commit such offence. Though cDR's and ccry footage confirmed the presence of all the three accused at one place, mere presence does not make the persons as accused. The triar court erred in considering the vague mentioning of prosecution that they have ampre evidence. The accident occurred in a spur of moment and within an eye_blinks time and hence, the petitioner became shocked and thereafter suggested 41 to assist the victims to reach nearby hospitar and approach porice station but the same was bratanfly 5 denied by A1. Further, admittedly the vehicle was driven by A1' for sitting at the back-seat A3 cannot be arrayed as an accused. An act causing the death must be lhe causa caueans' Inevitable cause cannot be sufficient to he clarified as an immediate cause There should not be any intervention ''lf another person's negligence' The allegations against the petitioner under Section 201 IPC ought to have been stuck-down for only reason that A3 is a simple man and it is beyond his capacity to screen any evidence' 9. While submitting the above contentions' learned counsel for the petitioner relied upor^ the decisions rendered in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs' State of Gujarat and anotherl and Indra Dalal Vs' State of Haryana2 and contended that a statement made by an accused ptlrson' if it is an admission, is admissible in evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act' unless the statement amounts to a confession and was made to a person in authority in consequence of some improper inducement' threat or promise' or was made to a Police Officer' or was made at a time when the accused was in custody of a Police Officer' lf a statement was made by the a<cused in the circumstances just. mentioned its admissibility will depenct upon the determination of the question whether it does not amount to a ccnfession' If it amounts to a confession, it wilr be inadmissibre, but if it does no1: amount to a confession, it will be admissible under Section 21 of the Act as an admission' provided that it suggests an inference as to a fact which is ir issue inl'ol ' (lUl9l lU Srrl)r' rrr'' ( ' u r ( lsr" 547 ' (901.-,) I I Srrprrnr: ( , uL1 C'ascs 31 "-, 6 I relevant to, the case and was not made to a porice officer in the course of an investigation under chapter XIV of the code of criminar procedure. Fufther, a statement made by an accused person is admissibre against others who are being jointly tried with him onry if the statement amounts to a confession. where the statement fails short of a confession, it is acrmissibre onry against its maker as an admission and not against those who are being joinfly tried with him' Further, section 25 0f the Indian Evidence Act states that confessions made to porice officers are not admissibre in Court. The primary rationare behind this rule is to safeguard against the potential for coercion, duress, or abuse that an accused person might face when dearing with law enforcement. Basing on the above decisions it is further contended by rearned counser for the petitioner that confession made by an accused person about a co-accused cannot be the sore basis for prosecution. It must be corroborated by other admissible evidence

10. Learned counser for the petitioner further contended that the distinction between admissions and confessions is of considerabre importance for two reasons' Firstry, a statement made by an accused person, if it is an admission, is admissibre in evidence under section 21 0f the Evidence Ac! unress the statement amounts to a confession and was made to a person in authority in consequence of some improper inducement, threat or promise, or was made to a Police Officer, or was made at a time when the accused was in custody of a Police officer. If a statement was made by the accused in the circumstances I I 7 just mentioned its admissibility will depend upon the determination of the question whether it does not amount to a confession' If it amr)unts to a confession, it will be inadmissible, but if it does not amount to a ccnfession' it willbeadmissibleunderSection2loftheActasanadmission,pror,,idedthatit suggests an inference as to a fact which is in issue in' or relevant t'o' the case and was not made to a police officer in the course of an investig ation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure' Secondly' a statem€rnt made by anaccusedpersonisadmissibleagainstotherswhoarebeingjointlykiedwith him only if the statement amounts to a confession' Where the statement falls short of a confession, it is admissible only against its maker as an admission and not against those who are being jointly tried with him'

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that tlre confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive plece of e:vidence and it needs corroboration. When the other evidence adduced againsi' an accused person is wholly unsatisfactory and the prosecution seeks to rely Llpon only on such confession, the presumption of innocence, which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence, assists the accused person and compels the Court lo render the verdict that the charge is not proved against him' Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the confessional statements recorded by the police during their custody are inadmissible as per the provisiorrs of Sections 25and26of the Indian Evidence Ac., 1872, unless they are made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. r, 8 i

12. Per contra, learned assistant public prosecutor, opposing the present criminal revision case, vehemenily contended that there is ampre evidence collected during the course of investigation and basing on such edifice the charge-sheet is prepared and upon finding prima-facie case onry the triar court took cognizance of the said charge-sheet and dismissed the petition fired seeking discharge of accused Nos.2 and 3 and that the said order is a wefl considered order and it does not require any interference of this court and that the genuineness or otherwise of the said evidence has to be decided on the strength of full-fledged triar. stating thus, he praced reriance on the case Jagdish Prasad and others vs. state of Madhya pradesh3 and orders of High court for the ludicature at Madras in crr.RC No.1496 0f 201g and crr.Mp Nos.17492 & 17493 of 2018 dated 31.01.2019. 13' Learned assistant pubric prosecutor, basing on the above decisions further contended that as a generar rure, a court can and may act on the testimony of a singre witness though uncorroborated, provided, the testimony of that singre witness is found out entirery reriabre. In that case, there wiil be no legal impediment for recording a conviction. But if the evidence is open to doubt or suspicion, the court will require sufficient corroboration. He further contended that when the testimony of a witness is neither whoily reriabre nor unreliable the court has to be circumspect and has to rook for corroboration in material particurars by reriabre testimony either direct or circumstantiar. But "AIR 1994 SC l25l i I 9 with regard to wholly reliable or wholly unreliable testimony' there rnay not be any difficulty in coming to a conclusion either accepting or reiecting the i testimonY. L4. Learned assistant public prosecutor further contended that in lhe case on hand,theaccusedNc.2inhisadditionalconfessionstatementhast,,ategorically stated that in view of solemnization of marriage of the petiti'rner/A3 on L2.12.2021, A2 suppressed the identity of A3' Basing on the said confession' learned assistant public prosecutor vehemently contended that the presence of petitioner/A3 in the scene of accident is very much established and his encouraging accused No.1 along with accused No'2 to escape from the spot immediately after the accident is established by the eye witnesselj and hence' the trial couft has rightly dismissed the application filed by the accused Nos'2 and 3 rejecting their plea for discharge and in that view of the matter' there is no need or necessity for interference of this Court with the werl considered findings of the trial Court. He further contended that in the above factual scenario, the accused/A3 cannot be left off the hook at the thrt':shold of the casewithoutSubjectinghimtotrialinordertoestablishtheofferrcescharged against him.

15. When the entire material available on record and thr: contentions advanced on either side have been scrutinized, the admitted facts are that accused No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle, accused Nos'2 and 3 sat in the carbuttheydidnotdrivethesamethoughtheyhaveconsumedalcohol,some i t0 ,e of the witnesses, more particurarry LWs.2 and 3 (stated to be eye witnesses), in their statements before the investigating officer, have stated that there were two persons in the car and after accident they fled away from the scene. 16' when the statements of LWs.2 and 3 are scrutinized, it is reveared that LW2 worked as security watchman at White Crow Clothing Shop, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and on O6.IZ.2O2L at around 01.20 a.m. while he was performing his duty, suddenly he heard booming sound and has seen a black car stopped and immediately he rushed to the spot. By seeing LW2, 2 persons in the car fled away from the spot. He further stated that the persons in the car were in drunken state and then immediatery he noted down the car No.TS 08 HR 3344 and it was coming from panjagutta towards KBR park with high speed in rash and negligent manner. As far as the evidence of LW3 is concerned, it is crear that after occurrence of accident, upon the information passed by their out-gate security guard Mr.Ramesh, LW3 came to the spot and observed the damage, loss and injuries to the victims. 77 ' when statements of witnesses are perused, the witnesses have stated with regard to occurrence of accident and subsequent death of the deceased and fleeing away of the driver of crime vehicre arong with vehicre from the scene of offence and that driver of the crime vehicre was in drunken condition. Accused Nos.2 and 3 sat in the back seat of the car in a drunken condition. As per the said statements it is reveared that no witness has stated that the accused including the petitioner stopped at the scene of offence and tried to i ; l1 helptheVictimstotakethemtothehospital,which|saseriousactonthepart of the accused. Though the accident occurred in a spur of moment and the petitioner and other accused sat in the back seat and they did not drive the vehicle, it is their bottnden duty to assist the victims in getting medical aid but there is nothing on record to show that they did the same and on the other hand, the statements of witnesses show that the accused fled away from the scene and tried to disappear the evidence' However, the said allegations are to be decided basing on the full-fledged trial'

18. The grounds of the present revision shows that the petitioner/A3' after accident,triedtoconvincethedriver/AltostoptheVehicleandtcjrenderhelp totheVictims.Thisitselfshowsthepresenceofthepetitioner/accusedNo'3in the crime vehicle. since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner extended help to the victims, the said contention appears to be not genuine'

19. Though the confessions are inherently weak evidence and should not be accepted merely because they contain a great deal of infcrmation and convictions should not be based solely on confessions, especialllr in cases of murderthesamecannotberuledoutiftheyweregivenvoluntarily.Section24 oflndianEvidenceActspecifiesthataconfessionmadeunderinducement, threat or promise is irrelevant in criminal proceedings' There i; nothing on record to show that the prosecution, by exerting pressure or un'lue influence over the accused. has recorded the said confession. The veracity of the l t2 t confession made by accused Nos.1 and 2 before the porice has to be tested during the trial basing on the evidence adduced. 20' when the confession statement said to have given by the accused No.2 is perused he stated that he arong with the petitioner/accused No.3 were arso in the crime vehicre at the time of accident and they encouraged accused No.1 to drive the car in high speed and after accident to flee away from the scene and that since the marriage of the petitioner/A3 was soremnized on 12.72.2021, they concealed the presence of A3 in the said vehicle at the time oF accident. Though the said confession was made during the period when accused were given for police custody on 10.12.2021, the same cannot be thrown away since it contained prima-facie ailegations against the petitioner. However, the same has to be decided basing on the evidence to be adduced on either side. 2L. Further, the prosecution case shows that they have call-data evidence to establish the presence of the petitioner arong with the other accused at the scene of offence and their interaction over cell phone prior to the accident and after the accident. However, the said fact is also to be decided after full_ fledged triar. But the said fact prima-facie shows that there are ailegations levelled against the petitioner along with other accused and hence, the petitioner cannot be decrared either way at the threshord of the case without letting him to face the trial. 1:'t

22. Having regard to the above discussed facts and circumstances' this Couft is of the considered view that there is nothing on record to state that the flndings of the trial Court are erroneous warranting interference of this Court since the prosecution could able to adduce the prima-facie material to frame a charge, of-course the same is a matter of trial' Further' without letting the petitioner to face trial, he cannot be declared either way at this premature stage.

23. 24 To, In the result, the present criminal revision case is dismissed' The miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand dismissed' SD/- M, RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII \ t\r! SECTION OFFICER I I l i

1. The hrletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. The Station Hor"rsg gff;6.r., Banjara Hills police Station. Hyder,abad 3. Two ccs to the Pubric Prosecutor, High court for the state cf relangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri Sirinivasa Rao Bodduluri, Advocate topUCl 5. Two CD Copies VH/PSL w \ t HIGH COURT DATED: 2810212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.931 of 2024 t\6 iTAr6: 1 7 J o 10 IPR 2s6 I ,rrrCt' t DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C. t0 4lN