HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1919 of 2007 DATED 05.03.2010 Between: Kadali Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu and another, … Petitioners And The State rep. By its Public Prosecutor … Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1919 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos.6 and 7 under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing charges in Sessions Case No.334 of 2006 on the file of VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry relating to offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 364, 201, 342/34 I.P.C. 2) As the matter now stands, the Sessions Case is now pending trial in the lower Court after framing charges. The lower Court framed seven charges in this case. In so far as A-6 and A-7 are concerned, the lower Court framed charges under Sections 302/34, 364, 201, 342/34 I.P.C. It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is absolutely no material placed by the prosecution to frame those charges against A-6 and A-7 and that the lower Court framed those charges on inadmissible evidence of confession of co-accused i.e., A-8, A-2 and A-3 said to have been given after their arrest, in pursuance of which confessional statement, no incriminating material was seized. 3) As can be seen from allegations in the charge sheet, there is no material against A-6 and A-7 as persons who participated in the offence, except from what the co-accused are alleged to have confessed. Apart from charge sheet, I have perused other documents filed along with charge sheet including Part-II case diary. In first information report, father of the deceased did not allege that A-6 and A-7 are also involved in this crime. The investigating officer examined several witnesses during investigation. None of them in the statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C stated anything about complicity of A-6 and A-7. Except in the alleged confessional statements of some of the accused, A-6 and A-7 did not figure as co-accused in this crime. No part of the alleged confessional statements is saved by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act because there were no discovery of incriminating material in pursuance of the alleged confessional statements. Thus mediators’ reports containing alleged confessional statements of the co-accused of the petitioners are no evidence in the eye of law. The lower Court should not have framed charges against A-6 and A-7 basing on such inadmissible and irrelevant pieces of evidence filed along with the charge sheet. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the lower Court committed error in law in framing above charges against A-6 and A-7. 4) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing charges framed against the petitioners 1 and 2/A-6 and A-7 in Sessions Case No.334 of 2006 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 05, 2010 KSH