Telangana High Court
Kosaraju Venkatesh vs The State Of Telangana, on 28 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.931 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mrs.Srilatha, learned counsel, representing Sri Srinivasa Rao
Bodduluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned assistant
public prosecutor representing learned public prosecutor for the State/
respondent.
2. Challenge in this criminal revision case, filed under Sections 438 & 442
BNSS and Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, is to the order dated 25.06.2024
passed in Crl.MP No.3376 of 2023 in SC No.366 of 2023 on the file of the
learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and where under the
prayer of the petitioner herein/accused No.3 and accused No.2 for their
discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.
3. SC No.366 of 2023 is a case registered for the offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, and rash driving in drunken condition with
abetment punishable under Sections 304(II), 201 read with Section 34 of IPC
and Section 185 of MV Act against the petitioner/A3 and two others. The
predominant allegation against the accused is that on the intervening night of
5/6.12.2021 at about 1.30 am., while accused No.1 was driving his car in a
drunken condition, while accused Nos.2 and 3 sat in the said car even knowing
that accused No.1 was in drunken condition and he should not drive the
vehicle, which may cause endanger to harm accused No.1 as well as to accused
2
Nos.2 and 3 and any other person on the road, accused No.1 drove the car and
proceeded towards KBR Park from Panjagutta in high speed and when they
reached near Road No.2, Banjara Hills in front of White Crow Clothing Shop,
accused No.1 dashed two pedestrians, who were crossing the road due to
which, the pedestrians fell down on the other side of the road and the accused
Nos.2 and 3 encouraged accused No.1 to flee away from the spot. Accordingly,
basing on the complaint lodged by one Ram Pravesh, uncle of one of the
victim/deceased viz.Ayodhya Rai, complaining that the driver of Porsche car
bearing No.TS 08 HR 3344 hit his nephew and his friend viz. Debendra Kumar
in a rash and negligent manner due to which by sustaining serious injuries they
both died on the spot and the said driver fled away from the spot, Crime
No.900 of 2021 dated 06.12.2021 was registered by the Police of Banjara Hills.
Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid.
4. During the course of proceedings before the trial Court, the accused
Nos.2 and 3 filed Crl.MP No.3376 of 2023 in SC No.366 of 2023 under Section
227 of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the said case mainly contending
that there is no evidence against accused Nos.2 and 3 and furthermore to
allege that they have abetted accused No.1 either to fled away from scene or to
screen the evidence and that they were only inmates of the vehicle, there was
no common intention to cause the alleged incident and that there is no prima-
facie case made out against them. Further, they are not responsible for the
accident, they did not drive the vehicle and that mere travelling with somebody,
3
who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in a drunken condition,
does not make them liable for the accident caused by the driver as there was
no common intention to commit such offence and that the accident occurred in
the spur of moment. Conducting trial against accused Nos.2 and 3 is nothing
but a futile exercise since there is no prima-facie case established against them.
5. The respondent/State vehemently opposed the said application mainly
contending that there is ample evidence against the accused proving the
presence of the accused persons at the scene of offence and their involvement
in the incident, after collecting ample evidence only the charge-sheet has been
laid and that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their
claim of discharge, full-fledged trial only would reveal the true set of facts and
that the investigation done by the investigating officer revealed a prima-facie
case against the accused.
6. The trial Court, upon scrutinizing the material put-forth before it by the
prosecuting agency, holding that the accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed and
admitted that though accused No.1 should not drive the vehicle due to his
consumption of alcohol, accused Nos.2 and 3 sat in the car driven by accused
No.1 and when the accident occurred, accused Nos.2 and 3 encouraged
accused No.1 to flee away from the scene of offence rather than to help the
injured persons and hence, they tried to swap or disappear the evidence
attracting the offence under Section 201 of IPC and that there is a prima-facie
case made out against the accused, dismissed the said application.
4
7. Aggrieved by the said findings of the trial Court, the petitioner/accused
No.3 preferred the present criminal revision case mainly contending that the
trial Court without there being any iota of evidence against them had
erroneously dismissed the petition filed by the accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking
their discharge, accused No.3 has no role in the alleged offence, placing
reliance on the confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 and
uncorroborated statements of prosecution witnesses to implicate the
petitioner/A3 for the offence of abetment is not permissible under Section 25 of
Indian Evidence Act, (23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and on the
other hand it raises a benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner, the trial Court
failed to notice the physical features of scene of occurrence and the crucial fact
that at the time of accident not even a single eye witness was present and
LWs.1 and 3 are planted by the police to strengthen their case.
8. Further contended that, mere travelling with somebody who is known to
him as a friend does not attract those sections as there was no common
intention to commit such offence. Though CDR’s and CCTV footage confirmed
the presence of all the three accused at one place, mere presence does not
make the persons as accused. The trial Court erred in considering the vague
mentioning of prosecution that they have ample evidence. The accident
occurred in a spur of moment and within an eye-blinks time and hence, the
petitioner became shocked and thereafter suggested A1 to assist the victims to
reach nearby hospital and approach police station but the same was blatantly
5
denied by A1. Further, admittedly the vehicle was driven by A1, for sitting at
the back-seat A3 cannot be arrayed as an accused. An act causing the death
must be the causa causans. Inevitable cause cannot be sufficient to be clarified
as an immediate cause. There should not be any intervention of another
person’s negligence. The allegations against the petitioner under Section 201
IPC ought to have been stuck-down for only reason that A3 is a simple man
and it is beyond his capacity to screen any evidence.
9. While submitting the above contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the decisions rendered in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra
Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and another 1 and Indra Dalal Vs. State of
Haryana 2 and contended that a statement made by an accused person, if it is
an admission, is admissible in evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act,
unless the statement amounts to a confession and was made to a person in
authority in consequence of some improper inducement, threat or promise, or
was made to a Police Officer, or was made at a time when the accused was in
custody of a Police Officer. If a statement was made by the accused in the
circumstances just mentioned its admissibility will depend upon the
determination of the question whether it does not amount to a confession. If it
amounts to a confession, it will be inadmissible, but if it does not amount to a
confession, it will be admissible under Section 21 of the Act as an admission,
provided that it suggests an inference as to a fact which is in issue in, or
1
(2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 547
2
(2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 31
6
relevant to, the case and was not made to a Police Officer in the course of an
investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, a
statement made by an accused person is admissible against others who are
being jointly tried with him only if the statement amounts to a confession.
Where the statement falls short of a confession, it is admissible only against its
maker as an admission and not against those who are being jointly tried with
him. Further, Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act states that confessions
made to police officers are not admissible in Court. The primary rationale
behind this rule is to safeguard against the potential for coercion, duress, or
abuse that an accused person might face when dealing with law enforcement.
Basing on the above decisions it is further contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that confession made by an accused person about a co-accused
cannot be the sole basis for prosecution. It must be corroborated by other
admissible evidence.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the distinction
between admissions and confessions is of considerable importance for two
reasons. Firstly, a statement made by an accused person, if it is an admission,
is admissible in evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act, unless the
statement amounts to a confession and was made to a person in authority in
consequence of some improper inducement, threat or promise, or was made to
a Police Officer, or was made at a time when the accused was in custody of a
Police Officer. If a statement was made by the accused in the circumstances
7
just mentioned its admissibility will depend upon the determination of the
question whether it does not amount to a confession. If it amounts to a
confession, it will be inadmissible, but if it does not amount to a confession, it
will be admissible under Section 21 of the Act as an admission, provided that it
suggests an inference as to a fact which is in issue in, or relevant to, the case
and was not made to a police officer in the course of an investigation under
Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, a statement made by
an accused person is admissible against others who are being jointly tried with
him only if the statement amounts to a confession. Where the statement falls
short of a confession, it is admissible only against its maker as an admission
and not against those who are being jointly tried with him.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the confession
of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence and
it needs corroboration. When the other evidence adduced against an accused
person is wholly unsatisfactory and the prosecution seeks to rely upon only on
such confession, the presumption of innocence, which is the basis of criminal
jurisprudence, assists the accused person and compels the Court to render the
verdict that the charge is not proved against him. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further contended that the confessional statements recorded by the
police during their custody are inadmissible as per the provisions of Sections
25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless they are made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate.
8
12. Per contra, learned assistant public prosecutor, opposing the present
criminal revision case, vehemently contended that there is ample evidence
collected during the course of investigation and basing on such edifice the
charge-sheet is prepared and upon finding prima-facie case only the trial Court
took cognizance of the said charge-sheet and dismissed the petition filed
seeking discharge of accused Nos.2 and 3 and that the said order is a well
considered order and it does not require any interference of this Court and that
the genuineness or otherwise of the said evidence has to be decided on the
strength of full-fledged trial. Stating thus, he placed reliance on the case
Jagdish Prasad and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 and orders of
High Court for the Judicature at Madras in Crl.RC No.1496 of 2018 and Crl.MP
Nos.17492 & 17493 of 2018 dated 31.01.2019.
13. Learned assistant public prosecutor, basing on the above decisions
further contended that as a general rule, a Court can and may act on the
testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated, provided, the testimony
of that single witness is found out entirely reliable. In that case, there will be
no legal impediment for recording a conviction. But if the evidence is open to
doubt or suspicion, the Court will require sufficient corroboration. He further
contended that when the testimony of a witness is neither wholly reliable nor
unreliable the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in
material particulars by reliable testimony either direct or circumstantial. But
3
AIR 1994 SC 1251
9
with regard to wholly reliable or wholly unreliable testimony, there may not be
any difficulty in coming to a conclusion either accepting or rejecting the
testimony.
14. Learned assistant public prosecutor further contended that in the case on
hand, the accused No.2 in his additional confession statement has categorically
stated that in view of solemnization of marriage of the petitioner/A3 on
12.12.2021, A2 suppressed the identity of A3. Basing on the said confession,
learned assistant public prosecutor vehemently contended that the presence of
petitioner/A3 in the scene of accident is very much established and his
encouraging accused No.1 along with accused No.2 to escape from the spot
immediately after the accident is established by the eye witnesses and hence,
the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the accused Nos.2
and 3 rejecting their plea for discharge and in that view of the matter, there is
no need or necessity for interference of this Court with the well considered
findings of the trial Court. He further contended that in the above factual
scenario, the accused/A3 cannot be left off the hook at the threshold of the
case without subjecting him to trial in order to establish the offences charged
against him.
15. When the entire material available on record and the contentions
advanced on either side have been scrutinized, the admitted facts are that
accused No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle, accused Nos.2 and 3 sat in the
car but they did not drive the same though they have consumed alcohol, some
10
of the witnesses, more particularly LWs.2 and 3 (stated to be eye witnesses), in
their statements before the investigating officer, have stated that there were
two persons in the car and after accident they fled away from the scene.
16. When the statements of LWs.2 and 3 are scrutinized, it is revealed that
LW2 worked as security watchman at White Crow Clothing Shop, Road No.2,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and on 06.12.2021 at around 01.20 a.m. while he was
performing his duty, suddenly he heard booming sound and has seen a black
car stopped and immediately he rushed to the spot. By seeing LW2, 2 persons
in the car fled away from the spot. He further stated that the persons in the
car were in drunken state and then immediately he noted down the car No.TS
08 HR 3344 and it was coming from Panjagutta towards KBR Park with high
speed in rash and negligent manner. As far as the evidence of LW3 is
concerned, it is clear that after occurrence of accident, upon the information
passed by their out-gate security guard Mr.Ramesh, LW3 came to the spot and
observed the damage, loss and injuries to the victims.
17. When statements of witnesses are perused, the witnesses have stated
with regard to occurrence of accident and subsequent death of the deceased
and fleeing away of the driver of crime vehicle along with vehicle from the
scene of offence and that driver of the crime vehicle was in drunken condition.
Accused Nos.2 and 3 sat in the back seat of the car in a drunken condition. As
per the said statements it is revealed that no witness has stated that the
accused including the petitioner stopped at the scene of offence and tried to
11
help the victims to take them to the hospital, which is a serious act on the part
of the accused. Though the accident occurred in a spur of moment and the
petitioner and other accused sat in the back seat and they did not drive the
vehicle, it is their bounden duty to assist the victims in getting medical aid but
there is nothing on record to show that they did the same and on the other
hand, the statements of witnesses show that the accused fled away from the
scene and tried to disappear the evidence. However, the said allegations are to
be decided basing on the full-fledged trial.
18. The grounds of the present revision shows that the petitioner/A3, after
accident, tried to convince the driver/A1 to stop the vehicle and to render help
to the victims. This itself shows the presence of the petitioner/accused No.3 in
the crime vehicle. Since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner
extended help to the victims, the said contention appears to be not genuine.
19. Though the confessions are inherently weak evidence and should not be
accepted merely because they contain a great deal of information and
convictions should not be based solely on confessions, especially in cases of
murder the same cannot be ruled out if they were given voluntarily. Section 24
of Indian Evidence Act specifies that a confession made under inducement,
threat or promise is irrelevant in criminal proceedings. There is nothing on
record to show that the prosecution, by exerting pressure or undue influence
over the accused, has recorded the said confession. The veracity of the
12
confession made by accused Nos.1 and 2 before the police has to be tested
during the trial basing on the evidence adduced.
20. When the confession statement said to have given by the accused No.2
is perused he stated that he along with the petitioner/accused No.3 were also in
the crime vehicle at the time of accident and they encouraged accused No.1 to
drive the car in high speed and after accident to flee away from the scene and
that since the marriage of the petitioner/A3 was solemnized on 12.12.2021,
they concealed the presence of A3 in the said vehicle at the time of accident.
Though the said confession was made during the period when accused were
given for police custody on 10.12.2021, the same cannot be thrown away since
it contained prima-facie allegations against the petitioner. However, the same
has to be decided basing on the evidence to be adduced on either side.
21. Further, the prosecution case shows that they have call-data evidence to
establish the presence of the petitioner along with the other accused at the
scene of offence and their interaction over cell phone prior to the accident and
after the accident. However, the said fact is also to be decided after full-
fledged trial. But the said fact prima-facie shows that there are allegations
levelled against the petitioner along with other accused and hence, the
petitioner cannot be declared either way at the threshold of the case without
letting him to face the trial.
13
22. Having regard to the above discussed facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that there is nothing on record to state that the
findings of the trial Court are erroneous warranting interference of this Court
since the prosecution could able to adduce the prima-facie material to frame a
charge, of-course the same is a matter of trial. Further, without letting the
petitioner to face trial, he cannot be declared either way at this premature
stage.
23. In the result, the present criminal revision case is dismissed.
24. The miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand dismissed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated :28.02.2025
Abb
