IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1438 OF 2010 Between: Thulsya Naik & 4 others … PETITIONERS And The State of A.P. … RESPONDENT This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1438 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is filed by the newly added A2 to A6 questioning order dated 21.07.2010, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Crl.M.P.No.666 of 2008 in S.C.No.811 of 2007, impleading A2 to A6 as accused persons in the case under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for facing trial along with A1. A2 to A6 are father, three brothers and nephew of A1. A1 has been facing charge for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. in this case. After examination of P.Ws.1 to 12, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed the petition in the lower Court for impleading A2 to A6 in this case. 2. There are no eye witnesses to the offence of murder. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Motive for the offence is stated to be property disputes between A1 and the deceased. Even in F.I.R., P.W.1 alleged suspicion on A1 with the support of his father and brothers as the offender who committed the offence. P.Ws.1 to 3 who are family members of the deceased, also expressed their suspicion on A1 along with A2 to A6 as the persons responsible for this offence. Except the suspicion and the alleged motive for A1, there is no other material on record to show complicity of A2 to A6 in the offence. 3. The Supreme Court, after surveying the case law on the subject starting from MUNICIPAL COROPORATION OF DELHI (MCD) VS. RAM KISHAN ROHTAGI[1], finally held in RAM SINGH VS. RAM NIVAS[2] as follows: “THE High Court, in our opinion, however, has committed a serious error in proceeding on the premise that mere existence of a prima facie case would be sufficient to exercise the court’s jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code. We have noticed hereinbefore the importance of the word ‘appears’. What is, therefore, necessary for the court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as accused in the case.” 4. Thus, even prima facie case is not the criterion to implead new persons as accused in a given case. In that view of the matter, mere suspicion expressed by P.Ws.1 to 3, both in F.I.R. as well as in their evidence before the trial Court will not clothe the lower Court to implead A2 to A6 in this case for being tried along with A1. It is incumbent for the trial Court to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted would lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as accused in the case, before ordering impleading of new accused persons to the case. Mere suspicion does not lead the trial Court anywhere. Suspicion cannot take place of proof in a case. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not stand to legal scrutiny. 5. In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the lower Court. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 23, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1438 OF 2010 August 23, 2010 KL [1] (1983) 1 SCC 1 [2] 2009-TLPRE-0-705