Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TELANGANA HIGH COURT
N. Tukaramji, J.
Kilari Anand Paul @
KA Paul @ Dr. K.A. Paul – Petitioner
versus
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal R.C. No. 46 of 2024
Decided on 10.9.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1-State: Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Discharge of accused – Mere suspicion, however strong, or expressions of hostility and ill-will, cannot substitute legal requirement of grave suspicion sufficient to frame charge.
(2) Conspiracy – Motive without corroborative material cannot by itself found charge of conspiracy.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120-B, 302, 379, 404 and 201 read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227, 397 and 401/[Sections 250, 438 and 442 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Murder, theft and conspiracy – Rejection of discharge application – Conspiracy requires proof of agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means – Direct evidence of such agreement is seldom available; it may be inferred from surrounding circumstances – Nonetheless, there must exist material indicating meeting of minds towards the commission of alleged crime – Mere suspicion, however strong, or expressions of hostility and ill-will, cannot substitute legal requirement of grave suspicion sufficient to frame charge – There is suspicion of strained family relations, allegations of financial disputes, and instances of personal hostility – However, there is no clear material evidencing meeting of minds between accused persons to eliminate deceased – Conversations, at best, establish motive and suspicion – Motive without corroborative material cannot by itself found charge of conspiracy – Conversations placed on record, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose prima facie case of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC against petitioner – To draw such inference would be to substitute conjecture for proof, which is impermissible at law – Materials relied upon by prosecution, at best, raise suspicion, but not grave suspicion, against petitioner – Petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. allowed and petitioner/accused discharged. (Paras 15, 17, 18, 20, 22 and 23)
Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’), assailing the order dated 18.12.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.335 of 2023 in S.C. No.241 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. I have heard Mr. G.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing respondent No.1-State.

3. The revision petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.9 in the above Sessions Case, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 379, 404, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”). During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petition. In doing so, it referred to (i) the statement of the de facto complainant/Accused No.1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., (ii) records of conversations between Accused Nos.1, 7, and the petitioner/Accused No.9, and (iii) analysis of call data records, which allegedly indicated the petitioner’s involvement in the conspiracy.

4. Case facts as pleaded by the petitioner:

On 31.01.2010, the dead body of K. David Raj, brother of the petitioner/Accused No.9, was discovered in an Innova vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 28 AY 9899, parked on NH-7. The police registered Crime No.10 of 2010. During the course of investigation, the statements of certain suspects were recorded, which allegedly disclosed a conspiracy involving Accused Nos.1 to 8. Consequently, those accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody in February 2010.

Subsequently, based on a report lodged by Accused No.1 (the de facto complainant) against the petitioner/Accused No.9, the Ongole Police registered Crime No.229 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 120-B of the IPC. During the investigation of that case, the alleged involvement of the petitioner/Accused No.9 in the earlier crime (Crime No.10 of 2010) purportedly came to light. In that context, Accused No.1 gave a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., asserting that the petitioner/Accused No.9 had instructed him to arrange for the killing of Mr. David Raj in furtherance of the petitioner’s missionary objectives. Based solely on this statement, the petitioner/Accused No.9 was implicated in Crime No.10 of 2010, arrested, and subsequently released on bail.

It is further pleaded that, in the meantime, the Ongole Police filed a closure report in Crime No.229 of 2012, citing lack of evidence against all the accused, including the petitioner/Accused No.9. Moreover, Accused No.1, who had earlier made the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., retracted before the Magistrate, asserting that he had named the petitioner only under police coercion. Notwithstanding these developments, the trial Court proceeded to take cognizance in Crime No.10 of 2010 and continued the proceedings. This compelled the petitioner/Accused No.9 to file the present application seeking discharge.

5. Submissions of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner:

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was implicated nearly two years after the occurrence, and that too without the discovery of any fresh material or evidence. The original investigation in Crime No.10 of 2010 did not disclose any role or involvement of the petitioner. The subsequent Crime No.229 of 2012, which formed the very basis for implicating the petitioner, was itself closed for want of evidence. Furthermore, the principal witness, namely Accused No.1 herein, whose statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was relied upon, has subsequently retracted and categorically deposed before the Magistrate that he had named the petitioner only under pressure and coercion exerted by the police. Despite these circumstances, two charge sheets were filed simultaneously, without any additional mat