(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.12 of 2025 in SC.No.254 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur by allowing this criminal revision petition.)

1. The Criminal Revision challenges the order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2025 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, refusing to discharge the petitioner who was arrayed as A2 in S.C.No.254 of 2023.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, arrayed as A2 and A1 entered into a conspiracy to cause the death of one Venkataramanappa on account of a property dispute; that A1 was taking care of the deceased and his properties; that prior to the occurrence, during the month of February 2023, one Shyamala, the daughter of the deceased Venkataramanappa and the sister of A1, who is stated to be a witness as per the contents of the final report, but not shown as a witness in the list of witnesses, took the deceased and her mother Pappamma to stay with her; that thereafter, the said Shyamala induced the deceased to execute a document in favour of her daughter in respect of six acres of lands; that thereafter, she prevented the deceased from visiting the house of A1; that A1 questioned the act of the said Shyamala; that aggrieved by the fact that the deceased had executed a document in favour of Shyamala's daughter, A1 decided to do away with the deceased; that on 29.04.2023, A1 along with the witness Srinivash approached the deceased and asked him to transfer the property in his name, which was refused by the deceased; that on 09.05.2023 at about 10.00 a.m. A1 and A2 entered into a conspiracy to do away with the deceased; that at about 11:30 a.m. on the same day, A1 took the deceased to his agricultural land and he held the head of the deceased and the petitioner stabbed the neck of the deceased with a knife; and that thereafter, A1 inflicted a cut injury on the neck and caused his death.

3. On the complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein viz., Herisha, son of Seenappa and the grandson of the deceased, an FIR was registered in Cr.No.100 of 2023 for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The complainant suspected the involvement of A1-Shivananda. Upon investigation, the 1st respondent filed a final report for the offence under Section 120B read with 302 IPC against the petitioner and the said Shivananda.

4. The petitioner sought for discharge on the ground that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no material to prove the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution; that the entire prosecution case against the petitioner is only based on the confession of the coaccused and that of the petitioner; and that the alleged recovery of bloodstained clothes of the petitioner said to have been seized pursuant to his confession, cannot be believed.

5. The trial Court, however, held that there was a property dispute between the petitioner and A1 on the one side and the deceased on the other side; that the prosecution has produced materials to establish motive, that the material objects were recovered on the confession of the petitioner; and that it was sufficient to hold that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner for the purpose of framing charges.

6. Mr. V. Gopinath, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would submit that apart from the confession of the petitioner and that of the co-accused, there is no other material against the petitioner to either establish motive or the circumstance of last seen together; that in the absence of material to establish these two important circumstances in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the recovery of blood-stained clothes alone would not be sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC; and that if the chances of conviction are bleak, it would be a futile exercise to direct him to undergo the ordeal of trial.

7. Mr. S. Duraiswamy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondentdefacto complainant, would submit that the recovery of blood-stained clothes of the petitioner at his residence, pursuant to his confession, is an important circumstance; that it is for the petitioner to explain how the blood-stained clothes were found in his house under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act; and that in a case of circumstantial evidence, it would be improper to discharge the accused, as an opportunity has to be given to the prosecution to establish the circumstances relied upon by them.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and would fairly concede that the witnesses examined by the prosecution would speak about only the motive of A1 and the fact that the deceased was last seen alive with A1; and that the material against the petitioner is the recovery of blood-stained clothes and the fact that the blood group of the blood stains found in the clothes matched with that of the deceased.

9. The petitioner is related to A1. A1 is the son of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution, as stated above, that A1 had motive to cause the death of the deceased, as he was aggrieved by the fact that the deceased had executed a settlement deed in favor of his sister's daughter, and that a few days prior to the occurrence, that is on 29.04.2023, the petitioner met the deceased and threatened him of dire consequences, if he did not convey the property to him.

10. It is the further case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet, that A1 and A2 assembled at the house of one Witness Seenappa and entered into a conspiracy to do away with the deceased on the next day. The son of Seenappa was examined as LW1, and he happens to be the grandson of the deceased. He had not stated anything about the alleged conspiracy between A1 and A2 on 08.05.2023.

11. Be that as it may. The prosecution had cited 14 witnesses, besides the investigating officer [LW15]. LW1, as stated above, had spoken about the motive and other relevant facts to implicate A1. LW2 to LW4 are inquest witnesses. LW5’s maternal grandfather is the deceased and he also does not implicate the petitioner in the alleged crime. LW6 to LW9 are mahazar witnesses. LW10 to LW12 are expert witnesses. LW13, is the Constable, who assisted the investigation. LW14 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR on the complaint given by LW1. It could be seen that none of the witnesses have stated that the petitioner had any motive to cause the death of the deceased. Thus admittedly, there is no material to show that the petitioner had any motive or was last seen with the deceased. In the absence of evidence to prove these two circumstances in a case of circumstantial evidence, this Court is of the view that the only circumstance relied upon by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and by the prosecutor, that the blood-stained clothes were recovered from the deceased, would be of no avail to form a complete chain of circumstances.

12. The law is well settled that mere recovery of blood-stained weapon or clothes, even assuming that it bears the same blood group of the deceased, would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder. This position was reiterated in Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 481 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it would be a futile exercise to ask the petitioner to undergo the trial in the absence of any evidence and only based on mere suspicion. The petitioner has been implicated on the confession of A1 given to the police. Hence, there is not even a grave suspicion, which is sufficient to frame the charge.

14. Hence, the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.12 of 2025 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hosur, is set aside. The petitioner is discharged of the offence as there is no sufficient ground to frame the charge. The Criminal Revision is allowed. The trial Court shall proceed with the other accused without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.