The court ruled that mere presence at a crime scene does not absolve liability; sufficient evidence must exist to proceed against accused under relevant sections of law.

ORDER :

1. The Criminal Revision Case No.1223 of 2023 under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is filed by the de facto complainant impugning the order dated 27.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2023 in S.C.No.141 of 2022 of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

2. The Criminal Revision Case No.1234 of 2023 under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is filed by the State impugning the order dated 27.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2023 in S.C.No.141 of 2022 of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

3. The Criminal Revision Case No.7 of 2024 under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC is filed by the de facto complainant impugning the order dated 27.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2023 in S.C.No.141 of 2022 of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

4. Heard arguments of Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Pradymna Kumar Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and Sri D.Vamsi Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor. For respondent/accused written submissions were filed.

5. Questioning the order of discharge of accused, the State as well as the de facto complainant have come up with these revisions.

6. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Sri K.Munneppa was elected as sarpanch of Kommannuthala Village of Lingala Mandal. On 27.07.2021 at the office of MPDO, Pulivendula Mandal, he attended a training session meant for newly elected sarpanches. After the session was over, he as a pillion rider of a motor cycle driven by Sri S.Venkata Rami Reddy were returning to the village. At about 02.15 pm on 27.07.2021, several persons named in the FIR attacked him with deadly weapons and killed him. At 03.30 pm on 27.07.2021, the said S.Venkata Rami Reddy lodged a written information at Lingala Police Station of Kadapa District where the SHO registered FIR.No.87 of 2021. The case was investigated into. On completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet as against A1 to A16 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 302, 120 B and 109 read with 149 IPC and cited fifteen witnesses. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pulivendula summoned A1 to A16 and thereafter in terms of section 209 CrPC committed the case to the court of sessions. At the Sessions court, the case was registered as S.C.No.141 of 2022 and was made over to learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. All the accused made their appearances before the learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, A5, A6, A7, A8 and A9 filed Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2023 under section 227 CrPC and prayed for discharge. State filed its counter. After due hearing, by an order dated 27.10.2023, the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa allowed the petition and discharged A5 to A9 and cancelled their bail bonds. By the present revisions, the State as well as the de facto complainant assailed the order.

7. The question that falls for consideration is “Whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against A5 to A9 and the learned trial court committed illegality in discharging the accused?”

POINT: -

8. The legislative direction to the sessions court for charge and discharge of accused are governed by section 227 and 228 CrPC. For convenience these provisions are extracted below.

227. Discharge.—If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

228. Framing of charge.—

(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which—

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and