SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 20740

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E. V. VENUGOPAL, J
Karra Anil Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/2864/2025



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.2864 of 2025

ORDER:

The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.186 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam. The offences alleged against the petitioner/accused No.1 is under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the brother of respondent No.2 by name Kapula Praveen performed love marriage with Guntupalli Sravani in the year 2008 and they resided at Burgampadu and the couple blessed with one son by name Harish. Thereafter, they came back to Bhadrachalam in the year 2009 and were residing in H.No.9- 1-96, Medical Colony, Bhadrachalam. At that time, G.Sravani worked as a teacher in Kranthi Vidyalayam and she developed illegal intimacy with one Anil Reddy. Upon knowing the same, K.Praveen went to his brother’s house and intimated about the said issue. In that regard, when K.Praveen questioned Anil Reddy, he admitted that he has extra marital relationship with G.Sravani. Then, K.Praveen informed the same to his family members Prasad Babu, Naveen and Suryakantham. They convinced G.Sravani and advised her to lead marital life amicably. But G.Sravani has not changed her behaviour and continued illicit intimacy with Anil Reddy.

3. On 14.07.2018 respondent No.2 caught G.Sravani and Anil Reddy were present in his house, when questioned the same, they both thrown respondent No.2 out of the house and closed the doors. Respondent No.2 informed the same to his brother K.Praveen, K.Praveen unable to digest such humiliation has consumed pesticide (Gross Poision). Immediately, respondent No.2 along with his family members rushed to the spot and shifted his brother K.Praveen to Sri Srinivasa Nursing Home, Bhadrachalam. There the doctor examined and advised to shift him to big hospital for better treatment. Immediately, they shifted K.Praveen to Andhra Hospital at Bhadrachalam. The doctors, who examined has informed that K.Praveen’s health was very critical and immediately intimated the same to Bhavanipuram Police Station. The police personal came to the hospital and recorded the DD of his brother K.Praveen in the presence of medical officer. Later on, K.Praveen has died. Basing on the report given by respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.175/2018 was registered against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and after completing the investigation, respondent No.1 filed Charge-Sheet and the same was numbered as S.C.No.186 of 2021.

4. Heard Sri Masthan Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no direct involvement of the petitioner in committing the offences of instigation, aiding or participation or engage himself in any conspiracy of doing an act, to constitute the offence of abetment, there are no ingredients in the form of allegations, but nevertheless the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no allegation of whatsoever to satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC and literally there is no instigation, aiding or participation or any sort of conspiracy, so as to hold that the accused had committed the offence of abetment and consequently because of the abetment, the deceased had committed suicide. The offence under provisions of the SCs and STs (POA) Act must have committed on the ground, intentionally that the victim belongs to the Schedule Cas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top