THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.666 of 2025

ORDER

Challenging the order, dated 13.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.62 of 2025 in S.C.No.462 of 2022 (old S.C.No.361 of 2018) by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Jayashankar Bhupalpally, this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section

227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Basing on the complaint, dated 27.12.2016 lodged by the de facto complainant alleging that accused Nos.1 to 4 and others attacked her husband with deadly weapons and killed him due to grudges between them, a case in Crime No.259 of 2016 was registered against them. Subsequently, on the basis of the confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 3, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, the same was taken cognizance and numbered as S.C.No.462 of 2022 (old S.C.No.361 of 2018) for the offences under Sections 148, 120-B and 302 r/w. 149 of IPC. Pursuant thereto, summons were issued to the accused. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a discharge petition before the trial Court. Upon perusal of the material available on record, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and mechanically passed the impugned order dismissing the discharge petition. Either in the complaint or FIR, the name of the petitioner does not find place. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner regarding participation in the alleged offences. The entire case against the petitioner rests solely on the confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 3, which is inadmissible in evidence as per law. However, the learned Magistrate overlooked this crucial aspect and dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner without due consideration.

Hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that an axe and a mobile phone were seized at the instance of the petitioner, which clearly establishes his involvement in the alleged offences. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has properly appreciated the material on record and rightly passed the impugned order, which cannot be interfered with. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. Having heard the submissions of both sides and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Magistrate dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner holding that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. namely D.Ananda Rao (LW-5), J.Mutha Reddy (LW-7), A.Srinivas (LW-8) specifically refer to the presence of the petitioner at the scene of offence. Further, the statement of O.Saidulu (LW-9) discloses the existence of a conspiracy among accused Nos.1 to 8, apart from the confessional statement of accused No.2.

7. In view of the said material, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the discharge petition and there is no infirmity or illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

Date: 03.11.2025

Note: C.C. by 06.11.2025.

B/o. rev