HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.389 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the order of the learned V-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari District, Eluru, in Crl.M.P.No.2182 of 2010 in S.C.No.46 of 2010 dated 04.02.2011, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-A3 and another under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge them for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 201 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. Revision Petitioner herein is accused No.3 in Crime No.69 of 2008 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. on the file of Ganapavaram police station. Subsequently the Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram circle, after completion of entire investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner-A3 and three other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of I.P.C. before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, and on committal the same was numbered as Sessions Case No.46 of 2010 on the file of Court of the V-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), West Godavari, Eluru. It is stated that even though there is no legal evidence, the investigating officer deliberately involved the petitioner-A3 and filed charge sheet and therefore the petitioner-A3 filed the present Crl.M.P.No.2182 of 2010 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. requesting the trial Court to discharge him for the said alleged offences. However, the trial Court having considered the entire material available on record, dismissed the said petition by its order dated 04.02.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-A3 field the present revision. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-A3 contended that from a perusal of the charge sheet it is clear that no offence is made out in so far as the petitioner-A3 is concerned. He further contended that since there is no legal evidence against the petitioner-A3, he is liable to be discharged from the alleged offences. He further contended that even according to the charge sheet, the liability of A-3 is limited to screening of the evidence in the case. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that on the basis of information furnished by the petitioner-A3 with regard to screening of evidence, he is implicated as one of the accused in the instant case and that the prosecution has strong evidence to prove the involvement of the petitioner-A3 in the commission of offence. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court looked into the contents of charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram circle. In the said charge sheet the liability of each of the accused in the instant case as per the evidence available is extracted hereunder: “A-1 with the motive to kill the deceased over the joint house site dispute took the assistance of A-2, chased him in the small hours of 2/3-7-08 to execute the murder of the deceased, in pursuance of his conspiracy with A-2. The deceased who was in a disorderly condition approached Vemula Kondaiah seeking help but due to his inability Kondaiah assured the deceased that the matter could be resolved on the next day. At this juncture, A-1 and A-2 again overpowered the deceased on the main road at the end of the CC road at the house of Kondaiah, dragged him towards bathing ghat of Undi canal, stopped him at the garbage dump and A-1 hit with a stone, A-2 hit him with a large spatula (dabara), tied a towel around the neck of the deceased, dragged him by that towel and might have thrown him into the canal thereafter. A-2 being the associate of A-1 and mastermind behind all the evil doings in the village extended his support to A-1 in killing the deceased for a way out in the joint property dispute. After the killing he not only screened himself as well as A-1 off the legal penalty, but also implicated innocents (L.Ws.21 to 26) fixing them responsible for the murder, by raising undue advantage of the petty quarrel took place between the deceased and the suspected ones. A-3 who was contacted by A-2 after discovering the dead body of the deceased furnished the details of L.Ws.21 to 26 to A-2 and aided him in implicating innocents in the murder case and thereby helped A-1 and A-2 to screen of themselves from the legal penalty for the murder committed by them. He wanted to settle scores with L.Ws.21 to 26 due to his professional rivalry though he is not connected with the murder, in any manner. His liability is limited to screening of the evidence in this case. The overt acts of A-4 are similar to A-3” From the above contents of charge sheet, it is clear that the case is made out against A1 and A2 only for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. In the charge sheet, it is stated that the liability of A-3 is limited to screening of the evidence in the instant case. Further in the last paragraph of the charge sheet, it is stated as under: “Thus the accused 1 to 4 are liable for punishment under Section 302 read with section 120 (B) of I.P.C. for having conspired to liquidate the deceased and A-1 and A-2 are liable for punishment under Section 302 I.P.C. for having committed the murder of the deceased and all the accused (A-1 to A-4) are further liable under Section 201 I.P.C. read with 120 (B) I.P.C. for having caused disappearance of the dead body of the deceased from the scene by pushing the corpse into Undi canal to escape from criminal liability, in pursuance of their conspiracy”. In my considered view, the aforesaid paragraph of the charge sheet runs contrary to the earlier paragraphs of the charge sheet. In one breath, it is stated that A-3 i.e., the petitioner herein is not liable for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and his liability is limited to screening of the evidence in the case. But in the last paragraph of the charge sheet, it is stated that all the accused are liable for punishment under Section 302 read with Section 120(B) of I.P.C., which appears to be illegal. Hence, this Court is of the view that the contents of the charge sheet wherein it is stated that the petitioner-A3 is also liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120 (B) of I.P.C. cannot sustain. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner-A3 is discharged from the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. However, the case can be proceeded against the petitioner/A3 for the remaining offence in accordance with law along with other accused. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 23-03-2011 Gsn.