CRLP/5851/2024 of Bathula @ Batthula Raju Vs The State of Telangana on 22 January 2026

:ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in L.P.C.No.2 of 2022 (S.C.No.B1 of 2021) pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Court at Jagtial (for short 'trial Court), registered for the offence under Section 302 rlw.34 of IPC

2. Heard lVlr. K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and lVr. [Vl.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. lnspite of service of notice, there is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.06.2016, the petitioner-acc;sed No.1 and accused No.2 have attacked the deceased namely Bheemarajam, with an axe and a knife, assaulting him indiscriminately, claiming that he had killed their brother-in-law through sorcery. As a result of the assault, the deceased sustained severe head injury and subsequently succumbed while undergoing treatment on 01.07 .2016. Basing on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the deceased, the Police registered a case in Crime No.B0 of 2016 against the accused for the aforesaid offence. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. As the petitioner-accused No.1 was abSconding, the case against him was split up and re-numbered as L.P.C.No.2 of 2022 (S.C.No.81 of 2021).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent*and has been falsely implicated in the case. After conductitrg full-fledged trial, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 13.04.2022 in S.C.No.2S 4 of 2017 found accused No.2 not guilty for the aforesaid offence and accordingly, acquitted him. When accused No.2, who is similarly placed with the petitioner-accused No.1 was found not guilty and acquitted for the same charges based on the testimony of same witnesses, the petitioner-accused No.1 is also entitled to be acquitted. Even if trial is conducted, no purpose would be served, aS such, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 are liable to be quashed. ln support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Shoukat Ali Qureshi v. State of / /

:e!j*1:.€'

Gujaratl , wtrerein, it was held that when there is similar or identical evidence of eye-witnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or sim lar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. H,-. also relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradr-.sh in Pothula Suresh v. The State of Andhra pradesh2, wherein, while considering the scope of Section 482 of Cr.p.C., it was held that wht:n some of the accused in the same case were found not guilty and ssrluitted after full-fledged trial, the proceedings against other accused are also liable to be quashed. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings ;rgainst the petitioner-accused No.1 .

5. On the, other hand, the learned Additional public prosecutor c.ontended th;rt all the allegations levelled in the complaint as wpll as in the charge sl^eet are subject matter of trial. Though accused No.2 in the crime was acquitted, the petitioner-accused No.1 has to appear before the trial Court and face trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. On a perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the trial Court acquitting accused No.2, after conducting full- fledged trial, for the very same offence levelled against the petitioner herein. The evidence adduced before the trial court failed to support the ( ' 202:i t.awsui(sc) 9 t 5 '20l I crl.L.J. 60g

li :i l i i case of the prosecution against accused No.2 and did not establish the r"f offence alleged against him. ln such circumstances, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1, who stands on the same footing of accused No.2, for the very same offence, would be a futile exercise and is unlikely to result in a conviction based on the testimony of witnesses. The aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the allegations against the petitioner-accused No.1 are identical and he stands on the same footing 'as accused No.2, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 ', Are liable to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in L.P.C.No.2 of 2022 (S.C.No.81 of 2021) pending on the file of fte learned Principal District and Sessions Court at Jagtial, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To, Os SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Principal District and Sessions Court, Jagtial, Jagtial District. The Judicial tVlagistrate of First Class at Korutla, Jagtial District. The station House Officer , Medipalli Police station, Karimnagar District Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) One CC to SRl. K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate IOPUCI

I

6. Two CD CoPies \ t.

-E I HIGH COURT DATED:2210112026

ORDER

CRL.PETITIONI No.5851 of 2024 ALLOWING TI{II CRL.PETTTION

7 6 !:l-8 ln?E * lrii l- t * )L /