Communications between a client and an advocate are not privileged under Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act when the purpose of the communication is to further a crime.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest.

2. The petitioner is A-3 in Crime No.22 of 2022 of Proddatur Rural Police Station.

3. A case under Sections 120-B, 109, 212 and 302 r/w.34 of IPC was registered against him and A1 and A2 in the above crime.

4. (a) Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased is the wife of the deceased brother of A1. A2 is the wife of A1. A3, who is the petitioner herein, is their advocate. After the death of the husband of the deceased, she being a widow is living alone by cultivating Ac.8.00 of land belonging to her deceased husband. A1, taking advantage of her helplessness, who is a widow, entertained an evil idea of grabbing the said land from the deceased as she has no children. He has been insisting the deceased to leave the village. The deceased resisted him. The deceased and her mother raised dispute before the elders in this regard. Whileso, the deceased got the said land registered in the name of her mother, who is the de facto complainant in this case. From then onwards, A1 bore-grudge against the deceased and he has been threatening to kill her.

(b) Whileso, on 10.01.2022 the deceased came to know that A1 is harvesting the groundnut crop in her land. Immediately, she reached the said land at about 2.30 P.M. and found one B.Ramana Reddy cutting the crop with a machine. When she asked him to stop the machine, he replied that he would stop the machine only if A1 directs him to stop the said machine. At that time, A2 caught-hold the hair of the deceased and dragged her on the ground, abusing her in a filthy language. Immediately, A1 beat her with an iron pipe on her head and she sustained bleeding injuries in the hands of A1. The deceased died on account of the said injuries sustained by her in the hands of A1.

(c) On a report lodged by the mother of the deceased, initially, a case in the above crime was registered against A1 and A2 only under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC. A1 voluntarily surrendered before the Court on 21.01.2022 and he was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, on a petition filed by the prosecution seeking police custody of A1 for interrogation in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2022, as per order dated 27.01.2022, police custody of A1 was given as sought for. Accordingly, A1 was interrogated by the police on 28.01.2022. It is stated that at that time, A1 disclosed that when he approached the petitioner herein, who is A3, who is an advocate by profession, and discussed with him regarding the said land dispute that the petitioner, who is A3, stated that he got only two options either to enter into a compromise with the deceased in respect of the said land dispute or to kill her and that he has assured him that he would take care of the case. He also stated while answering the questions put to him at the time of interrogation that A3 informed him that he has to either enter into a compromise with the deceased or to kill her assuring him that he would take care of the case.

(d) On the basis of the said information secured during the course of interrogation of A1, as it is disclosed that there was a conspiracy between A1 to A3 in committing the said offence of murder and as it is revealed that the petitioner who is A3 abetted A1 to kill the deceased, the Investigating Officer has filed a memo in the Court of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, to add the petitioner as A3 in the above crime and to add Sections 120-B, 109 and 212 of IPC along with Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC. Therefore, accordingly, the petitioner is shown as A3 in the above crime. Thus, the prime allegation against the petitioner is that he along with A1 and A2 conspired together to do away with the life of the deceased in this case and that he has abetted A1 to commit murder of the deceased in this case. It is also the case of the prosecution that the pe