1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.143 of 2023 in S.C.No.45 of 2022 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Kannuri Sathyaraj died on 29.06.2016 in what was initially reported as a road accident, and a case was registered under Section 304-A IPC. Subsequently, based on a complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased expressing suspicion, further investigation was conducted and the case was altered to offences under Sections 302, 201 read with 120-B and 203 IPC, alleging that the death was a result of a criminal conspiracy.

3. It is alleged that Accused No.1 (paramour of the deceased’s wife), Accused No.2 (wife of the deceased), and Accused No.3 (brother of Accused No.2) conspired to eliminate the deceased due to personal and family disputes, including illicit relationship and refusal of marriage proposal relating to the adopted daughter of the deceased. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, Accused No.4 (petitioner) allegedly assisted Accused No.1 by arranging Accused No.5, who drove a vehicle and intentionally hit the deceased’s scooty, causing fatal injuries, which were initially projected as an accident.

4. The petitioner/Accused No.4 filed the petition before the trial Court under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge on the ground that there is no material evidence against him except the alleged confession of co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence, and that none of the witnesses speak about his involvement. However, the prosecution opposed the petition contending that there exists prima facie material, including statements and confessions, showing the involvement of accused No.4 in facilitating the offence by arranging accused No.5. The trial Court, upon consideration, found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner and dismissed the discharge petition. Challenging the said dismissal order, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

5. Heard Sri S. Chandraekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the trial Court dismissing the discharge petition is mechanical, illegal, and contrary to the facts on record and that the petitioner has no role whatsoever in the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated based solely on inadmissible confessional statements of co-accused, without any independent or corroborative evidence. He further submitted that the case was originally registered as an accident under Section 304-A IPC in the year 2016 and, after a delay of more than four years, was converted into a murder case based on a belated and motivated complaint by the mother of the deceased, allegedly due to personal and monetary disputes. He contended that none of the witnesses examined, including key family members, have attributed any role to the petitioner, and the entire prosecution case against him is based on suspicion and conjectures and that the legality of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and argued that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that there exists prima facie material on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence and that during the course of further investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased, and the petitioner played a crucial role in facilitating the offence by arranging Accused No.5 for executing the plan. He contended that the veracity, admissibility, and evidentiary value of confessional statements and other materials cannot be examined at the stage of discharge and are matters to be decided during trial. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, it is to be noted that the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by accused No.4 challenging the order of the trial Court dismissing his petition for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 120-B and 203 IPC.

9. It is not in dispute that the case was initially registered in the year 2016 under Section 304-A IPC treating the incident as a road accident, wherein it was alleged that a vehicle coming from behind hit the scooty of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death. Subsequently, after a considerable lapse of time, i.e., in the year 2022, based on a complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased expressing suspicion over the circumstances of death, further investigation was conducted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., and the case was altered to one under Sections 302, 201 read with 120-B and 203 IPC alleging a criminal conspiracy among the accused persons.

10. The specific allegation against the present petitioner/accused No.4 is that he facilitated the commission of the offence by arranging accused No.5, who allegedly drove the vehicle and caused the death of the deceased by hitting his scooty, making it appear as an accident. Except this allegation, there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioner indicating his active participation in the alleged conspiracy. A careful examination of the statements of witnesses and the material placed on record does not disclose any direct or independent evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged conspiracy or the commission of the offence, apart from the statements of co-accused.

11. It is also to be noted that the alleged involvement of the petitioner surfaced only during the course of further investigation conducted after a delay of several years, and the same appears to be primarily based on confessional statements of co-accused, the evidentiary value of which is a matter of trial. However, at the stage of discharge, there must exist sufficient material giving rise to a strong suspicion against the accused. In the present case, even if the entire material on record is taken at its face value, the same does not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner, particularly his involvement in the criminal conspiracy.

12. Having regard to the absence of specific and cogent material, the prolonged delay in altering the nature of the offence, and the limited allegation that the petitioner merely arranged accused No.5 without any substantive corroboration, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court finds that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the material on record while dismissing the discharge petition and that the petitioner/accused No.4 is entitled to be discharged from the case.

13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.143 of 2023 in S.C. No.45 of 2022 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial, and the petitioner/accused No.4 is discharged from the offences alleged against him.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.