Dismissed

Saraf Srikanth v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC21 Mar 2013CRLP/2192/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash proceedings against the petitioner as an accused. The Court distinguished the precedent where the case attained finality, holding that since the State could appeal the acquittal of other accused and fresh evidence against the petitioner was necessary, the proceedings could not be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings is dismissed.

Saraf Srikanth Vs The State of Ap. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2192 OF 2013

¶3

2 1 st March, 2013

¶4

Between: Saraf Sriknath .. Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another .. Respondents

¶5

The Court made the following: (Order follows next page) ORDER:

¶6

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioner - accused No.11 in Sessions Case No.292 of 2009 on the file of the

¶7

learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - cum - VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, seeking to quash the entire proceedings in the said Sessions Case against him.

¶8

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶9

3. The police filed charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short “IPC”). The allegation, broadly, is that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, they killed two persons viz., B. Narayana and Dasthappa (Deceased Nos.1 and 2 respectively).

¶10

4. The present criminal petition is filed on the ground that the case was split up against accused No.1 and the petitioner herein (accused No.11) by the trial Court and the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 10 after full trial. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the same evidence has to be let in by the prosecution against the petitioner, and since the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.2 to 10, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and hence they are liable to be quashed.

¶11

5. I, absolutely, see no merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. The specific overtact to the effect that the petitioner caught hold the neck of the deceased Narayana, and while Ashappa (Accused No.1) slit the throat with the knife, is attributed to the petitioner in the charge sheet. The allegation against the petitioner and the remaining accused is that they killed two persons in prosecution of their common object, and therefore, the charge under Section 149 IPC was framed against the petitioner along with other

¶12

accused apart from other charges for the principal offences. This is not a case where all the witnesses turned hostile. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 10.

¶13

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Apex Court in CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. AKHILESH SINGH^[1] , wherein it was held that once the main accused,

¶14

who alleged to have hatched a conspiracy and who had motive to kill the deceased was discharged, and when that matter had attained finality, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case against the respondent.

¶15

7. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the present matter has not attained finality. The State may file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court against accused Nos.2 to 10. Since the case against the petitioner has been spilt up, evidence has to be taken afresh against him. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to hold that since the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.2 to 10, the entire proceedings in Sessions Case No.292 of 2009 against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

¶16

7. Therefore, in view of the specific overtacts attributed to the petitioner - accused No.11 in the charge sheet and also in view of the fact that the judgment passed by the trial Court can be challenged by the State by filing an appeal, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings against him in exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶17

8. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.

¶18

__________________

¶19

R. KANTHA RAO, J

¶20

March 21, 2013. SSV/PV

¶21

[1] AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT, 268

Saraf Srikanth v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saraf Srikanth v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoharlal Gupta, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Ashok Yadav, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Murali Krishna Kunety Ragupati, Vs Niharika Murthy Raju

S.Sirkanth Vs State of rep by its Public Prosecutor

Udutala Yadaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Abdul Sammi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh