IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
G. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P. - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2656 of 2019
Decided On : 09-01-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 read with 149 - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioners sought to quash proceedings against them in a murder case, arguing acquittal of a co-accused - Court held that acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle others to acquittal, and serious allegations remain to be tried - The inherent powers under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 1, 6, 20, 22)
(B) Acquittal of Co-Accused - Legal principle - The acquittal of a co-accused does not bar the trial of other accused, as each case must be decided on its own merits and evidence. (Paras 12, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused in a murder case, sought to quash proceedings based on the acquittal of a co-accused, arguing no specific overt acts were attributed to them. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that serious allegations against the petitioners warranted a full trial, and the acquittal of a co-accused does not affect the proceedings against them. (Paras 22, 23)
Issues: The main issues were whether the acquittal of a co-accused is a ground to quash proceedings and whether the proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 6, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically lead to the quashing of proceedings against other accused, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated based on its own evidence. (Paras 19, 22)
Result: Criminal petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case of the prosecution (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners requested to quash (Para 4) |
| 3. prosecutor contended (Para 5) |
| 4. points that arise for consideration (Para 6) |
| 5. acquittal of co-accused (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. serious allegations against petitioners (Para 22) |
| 7. criminal petition is dismissed (Para 23 , 24) |
ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.250 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District corresponding to Crime No.140 of 1995 on the file of Ongole Town Police Station, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148 , 307 and 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act . Petitioners herein are accused Nos.3, 4 and 7.
2) The case of the prosecution is that crime No.140 of 1995 was registered against 8 persons. Accused Nos.1 to 8 are known to each other and very close associates. With avowed ideology of the Peoples’ War Group, the members of P.W.G. and their associates organised attacks on law abiding citizens whom they dub as class enemies. Magunta Subbarama Reddy was a member of Parliament and elected on the Congress-I Ticket in the year 1991 from Ongole Constituency, Prakasam District and one of the leading industrialists of South India. He was a sole distributor for the Mcdowell Brand Liquor for South India. After he became a Member of Parliament in the year 1991, he started taking keen interest in his constituency by promoting several welfare schemes and was serving many poor persons and the downtrodden. One V.Nagabhushanam, retired Tahsildar was functioning as Assistant to him. During the year 1995, the accused and others entered into criminal conspiracy to do away the life of Magunta Subbarama Reddy and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, Rayalaseema Reddeppa supplied money to accused Nos.1 to 7 to accomplish the common object of murder and Vemu Rama Rao @ Prasad engaged car bearing No.AAG 8300 belonging to accused No.2 in the month of November, 1995 and all the accused formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly, entered into the Office-cum-residence of Magunta Subbarama Reddy on 01.12.1995 at 01.40 p.m. and committed the alleged offences. While the accused were escaping, they committed theft of the car bearing No.AEE 2999 belonging to Sri Yada Srinivasa Rao and during the same transaction, they attempted to murder Subba Reddy and Penchal Reddy having committed trespass. During the course of same transaction, accused No.1 fired at the deceased Magunta Subbarama Reddy, Chappidi Venkata Ratnam, Chennareddy Penchal Reddy by using his unlicensed 0.45” pistol and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and that accused No.2 facilitated accused No.1 and others to escape after commission of the offence and he was in possession of four live 7.63 cartridges without valid licence and thereby accused No.2 committed an offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act . After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. As the offences alleged against the accused are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Metropolitan Sessions Division, Hyderabad, as per the orders of the High Court and the case against accused Nos.1 and 2 was renumbered as S.C.No.315 of 1997. After full-fledged trial, Sessions Court found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty and convicted and sentenced accused Nos.1 to suffer imprisonment for life each for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., under Section 120-B, 449, 307 read with 149 of I.P.C. and also sentenced to su
The acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle other accused to quash proceedings; each case must be evaluated on its own merits.
Point of law: Quash of criminal proceedings – Dismissed - Judgment of acquittal is not admissible under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act and the benefit cannot be extended.
The acquittal of co-accused does not automatically warrant quashing of charges against an absconding accused; trials may proceed if evidence against absconders remains.
The acquittal of co-accused necessitates the quashing of charges against similarly situated accused, reinforcing the doctrine of parity in criminal proceedings.
The doctrine of parity applies, allowing for the quashing of proceedings against an accused when co-accused have been acquitted on similar charges.
Proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when prosecution witnesses turn hostile and there’s insufficient evidence, indicating a lack of prospect for conviction.
The court affirmed that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly, emphasizing that acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically warrant quashing proceedings....
The acquittal of co-accused does not bar the prosecution of other accused who have not faced trial, and each case must be decided on its own evidence.
Confessions of co-accused alone are insufficient for conviction; substantive evidence is necessary for criminal charges to proceed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.