ORDER

Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the docket order dated 20.06.2024 against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 respectively in S.C.No.70 of 2019, on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases – cum – II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/ de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Miryalaguda I Town Police Station, Nalgonda District stating that he had two sons. When his elder son, i.e., Pranay Kumar, was in class 10, he got acquainted with one Amrutha Varshini and later they became close to each other. One day the said Amrutha Varshini told his elder son that if he did not accept her love, she would commit suicide, due to which, the said Pranay Kumar accepted her love. When the love matter was known to the father of Amrutha Varshini, he stopped her studies and house arrested her. Due to the pressure of Amrutha Varshini, the said Pranay Kumar took her to Hyderabad and got married without informing anyone. The father of Amrutha Varshini lodged a complaint about it before the Miryalaguda Police, who then brought Pranay Kumar and Amrutha Varshini from Hyderabad to Miryalaguda. Amrutha Varshini informed the Police that they were majors, and as such, they got married. Since then, Amrutha Varshini has been residing with Pranay Kumar at his house.

4. It is further stated that Amrutha Varshini was conceived and attending regular checkups at Jyothi Hospital in Miryalaguda. On 14.09.2018, Amrutha Varshini, Pranay Kumar, and his mother went to the hospital for medical checkup, after completion of the same when they were going home, an unidentified male person came behind Pranay Kumar with a large knife, attacked him and dealt severe blows on his head with a Knife, as a result, he received severe bleeding injuries to his head and neck and died on the spot.

5. Based on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.139 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 120 (b) read with 109 of IPC, and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25 (1) (A) and Section 27 (3) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. After completion of the investigation, they filed a charge sheet, vide S.C.No.70 of 2019, before the learned Special Sessions Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases – cum – II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. On 20.06.2024, during the chief examination of P.W.17, the prosecution brought on record the confession statement of accused Nos.1 and 6 and reiterated the same in his evidence for which the defence counsel objected for recording the said evidence. The trial Court has passed the impugned order stating that though the confession of accused Nos.1 and 6 was not admissible in evidence, the objection of the defence was overruled since the confession revealed a pertinent piece of information i.e., MO.6 – Mobile phone.

Hence, the present criminal petitions.

7. Heard Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6887 of 2024, and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6894 of 2024 as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 in both the cases.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the confession of acc