[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Kadapati Ramesh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.880 of 2025
DATE: 08.04.2026
BETWEEN:
Kadapati Ramesh Reddy
.....petitioner/accused No.4
And
The State of Telangana and others
.....Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the
order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.143 of 2023 in
S.C.No.45 of 2022 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Mancherial.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Kannuri
Sathyaraj died on 29.06.2016 in what was initially reported as
SKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.880 of 2025
a road accident, and a case was registered under Section 304-
A IPC. Subsequently, based on a complaint lodged by the
mother of the deceased expressing suspicion, further
investigation was conducted and the case was altered to
offences under Sections 302, 201 read with 120-B and 203
IPC, alleging that the death was a result of a criminal
conspiracy.
3. It is alleged that Accused No.1 (paramour of the
deceased's wife), Accused No.2 (wife of the deceased), and
Accused No.3 (brother of Accused No.2) conspired to eliminate
the deceased due to personal and family disputes, including
illicit relationship and refusal of marriage proposal relating to
the adopted daughter of the deceased. In furtherance of the
said conspiracy, Accused No.4 (petitioner) allegedly assisted
Accused No.1 by arranging Accused No.5, who drove a vehicle
and intentionally hit the deceased's scooty, causing fatal
injuries, which were initially projected as an accident.
4. The petitioner/Accused No.4 filed the petition before the
trial Court under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge on
the ground that there is no material evidence against him
SKS, J
except the alleged confession of co-accused, which is
inadmissible in evidence, and that none of the witnesses
speak about his involvement. However, the prosecution
opposed the petition contending that there exists prima facie
material, including statements and confessions, showing the
involvement of accused No.4 in facilitating the offence by
arranging accused No.5. The trial Court, upon consideration,
found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the
petitioner and dismissed the discharge petition. Challenging
the said dismissal order, the petitioner has filed the present
Criminal Revision Case.
5. Heard Sri S. Chandraekhar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra
Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent - State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order of the trial Court dismissing the discharge
petition is mechanical, illegal, and contrary to the facts on
record and that the petitioner has no role whatsoever in the
alleged offence and has been falsely implicated based solely on
SKS, J
inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused, without
any independent or corroborative evidence. He further
submitted that the case was originally registered as an
accident under Section 304-A IPC in the year 2016 and, after
a delay of more than four years, was converted into a murder
case based on a belated and motivated complaint by the
mother of the deceased, allegedly due to personal and
monetary disputes. He contended that none of the witnesses
examined, including key family members, have attributed any
role to the petitioner, and the entire prosecution case against
him is based on suspicion and conjectures and that the
legality of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
and argued that continuation of proceedings against the
petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, he
prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by
allowing this Criminal Revision Case.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the
petition, contending that there exists prima facie material on
record indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the
alleged offence and that during the course of further
investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons entered
SKS, J
into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased, and the
petitioner played a crucial role in facilitating the offence by
arranging Accused No.5 for executing the plan. He contended
that the veracity, admissibility, and evidentiary value of
confessional statements and other materials cannot be
examined at the stage of discharge and are matters to be
decided during trial. Therefore, he prayed the Court to
dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel and upon a careful perusal of the material available
on record, it is to be noted that the present Criminal Revision
Case is filed by accused No.4 challenging the order of the trial
Court dismissing his petition for discharge under Section 227
Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Sections
302, 201 read with 120-B and 203 IPC.
9. It is not in dispute that the case was initially registered
in the year 2016 under Section 304-A IPC treating the
incident as a road accident, wherein it was alleged that a
vehicle coming from behind hit the scooty of the deceased in a
rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death.
SKS, J
Subsequently, after a considerable lapse of time, i.e., in the
year 2022, based on a complaint lodged by the mother of the
deceased expressing suspicion over the circumstances of
death, further investigation was conducted under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C., and the case was altered to one under Sections
302, 201 read with 120-B and 203 IPC alleging a criminal
conspiracy among the accused persons.
10. The specific allegation against the present
petitioner/accused No.4 is that he facilitated the commission
of the offence by arranging accused No.5, who allegedly drove
the vehicle and caused the death of the deceased by hitting
his scooty, making it appear as an accident. Except this
allegation, there is no specific overt act attributed to the
petitioner indicating his active participation in the alleged
conspiracy. A careful examination of the statements of
witnesses and the material placed on record does not disclose
any direct or independent evidence connecting the petitioner
with the alleged conspiracy or the commission of the offence,
apart from the statements of co-accused.
SKS, J
11. It is also to be noted that the alleged involvement of the
petitioner surfaced only during the course of further
investigation conducted after a delay of several years, and the
same appears to be primarily based on confessional
statements of co-accused, the evidentiary value of which is a
matter of trial. However, at the stage of discharge, there must
exist sufficient material giving rise to a strong suspicion
against the accused. In the present case, even if the entire
material on record is taken at its face value, the same does
not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged against the petitioner, particularly his
involvement in the criminal conspiracy.
12. Having regard to the absence of specific and cogent
material, the prolonged delay in altering the nature of the
offence, and the limited allegation that the petitioner merely
arranged accused No.5 without any substantive corroboration,
this Court is of the considered view that continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of
process of law. Therefore, this Court finds that the trial Court
has not properly appreciated the material on record while
dismissing the discharge petition and that the
SKS, J
petitioner/accused No.4 is entitled to be discharged from the
case.
13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed,
setting aside the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.
No.143 of 2023 in S.C. No.45 of 2022 by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Mancherial, and the petitioner/accused No.4
is discharged from the offences alleged against him.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 08.04.2026
SAI
