*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

+ Criminal Petition No.2543 of 2022

% Dated 22-04-2022

# Peta Chandra Sekhar

….. Petitioner

Vs.

$ 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P,

Amaravati & Anr.

…..Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B.Adinarayana Rao,

learned Senior Counsel for

Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri,

learned counsel.

^ Counsel for the respondents: Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1

(1884) 14 Q.B. D.153

2

(1989) 3 All ER 701

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Criminal Petition No.2543 of 2022

Peta Chandra Sekhar

….. Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P,

Amaravati & Anr.

…..Respondents

COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 22 -04-2022

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

--

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals

-Yes-

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see

the fair copy of the Judgment?

-Yes-

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Criminal Petition No.2543 of 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to enlarge the petitioner on

bail in the event of his arrest.

2) The petitioner is A-3 in Crime No.22 of 2022 of Proddatur

Rural Police Station.

3) A case under Sections 120-B, 109, 212 and 302 r/w.34 of

IPC was registered against him and A1 and A2 in the above

crime.

4) (a) Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that the

deceased is the wife of the deceased brother of A1. A2 is the wife

of A1. A3, who is the petitioner herein, is their advocate. After

the death of the husband of the deceased, she being a widow is

living alone by cultivating Ac.8.00 of land belonging to her

deceased husband. A1, taking advantage of her helpless ness,

who is a widow, entertained an evil idea of grabbing the said

land from the deceased as she has no children. He has been

insisting the deceased to leave the village. The deceased resisted

him. The deceased and her mother raised dispute before the

elders in this regard. Whileso, the deceased got the said land

registered in the name of her mother, who is the de facto

complainant in this case. From then onwards, A1 bore-grudge

against the deceased and he has been threatening to kill her.

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

4

(b) Whileso, on 10.01.2022 the deceased came to know

that A1 is harvesting the groundnut crop in her land.

Immediately, she reached the said land at about 2.30 P.M. and

found one B.Ramana Reddy cutting the crop with a machine.

When she asked him to stop the machin e, he replied that he

would stop the machine only if A1 directs him to stop the said

machine. At that time, A2 caught-hold the hair of the deceased

and dragged her on the ground, abusing her in a filthy language.

Immediately, A1 beat her with an iron pipe on her head and she

sustained bleeding injuries in the hands of A1. The deceased

died on account of the said injuries sustained by her in the

hands of A1.

(c) On a report lodged by the mother of the deceased,

initially, a case in the above crime was registered against A1 and

A2 only under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC. A1 voluntarily

surrendered before the Court on 21.01.2022 and he was

remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, on a petition filed by

the prosecution seeking police custody of A1 for interrogation in

Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2022, as per order dated 27.01.2022, police

custody of A1 was given as sought for. Accordingly, A1 was

interrogated by the police on 28.01.2022. It is stated that at

that time, A1 disclosed that when he approached the petitioner

herein, who is A3, who is an advocate by profession, and

discussed with him regarding the said land dispute that the

petitioner, who is A3, stated that he got only two options either

to enter into a compromise with the deceased in respect of the

said land dispute or to kill her and that he has assured him that

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

5

he would take care of the case. He also stated while answering

the questions put to him at the time of interrogation that A3

informed him that he has to either enter into a compromise with

the deceased or to kill her assuring him that he would take care

of the case.

(d) On the basis of the said information secured during the

course of interrogation of A1, as it is disclosed that there was a

conspiracy between A1 to A3 in committing the said offence of

murder and as it is revealed that the petitioner who is A3

abetted A1 to kill the deceased, the Investigating Officer has filed

a memo in the Court of the learned II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, to add the petitioner as A3

in the above crime and to add Sections 120-B, 109 and 212 of

IPC along with Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC. Therefore,

accordingly, the petitioner is shown as A3 in the above crime.

Thus, the prime allegation against the petitioner is that he along

with A1 and A2 conspired together to do away with the life of the

deceased in this case and that he has abetted A1 to commit

murder of the deceased in this case. It is also the case of the

prosecution that the petitioner has also indulged in harbouring

the offender, who is A1, knowing that he is an offender in the

said murder case with an intention to screen him from legal

punishment. It is stated that the petitioner has initially sent

away A1 to Kadapa and from there to Polathali temple and

subsequently, got him surrendered before the Court through

another lawyer. So, it is stated that he has also committed an

offence punishable under Section 212 of IPC.

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

6

5) Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Pub lic

Prosecutor for the respondent State.

6) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri B.

Adinarayana Rao would submit that there is a civil dispute

between the mother of A1 and the deceased in respect of the

said land in question and a Suit in O.S.No.462 of 2020 was filed

by mother of A1 against the deceased before the Court of the

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur and the petitioner

herein, who is A3, is the advocate for the mother of A1, who is

the plaintiff in the said Suit and as such, the petitioner herein

was falsely implicated in this case by the de facto complainant,

who is the mother of the deceased, as she bore-grudge against

him for filing the said Suit against the deceased on behalf of the

mother of A1. He would further contend that the said statement

of A1 extracted during course of his interrogation by the police,

which relates to the conversation between an advocate and a

client, is a privileged communication and as such, the said

statement has no evidentiary value and it cannot be considered

as an incriminating circumstance or evidence against A3, who is

an advocate by profession. He would further submit that except

the said information extracted from A1 during the course of his

interrogation, there is no other material on record to prove the

complicity of the petitioner in hatching up any conspiracy along

with A1 and A2 to commit murder of the deceased and as such

the accusation made against the petitioner is not well founded.

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

7

He further contends that the petitioner is falsely implicated in

this case due to political rivalry as he belongs to Telugu Desam

Party. Therefore, he would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to

the petitioner.

7) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent

State vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. He would

submit that during the course of interrogation of A1 after he was

taken into police custody as per the orders passed by the

learned Magistrate that it is clearly disclosed by him that he has

consulted the petitioner herein, who is A3, before committing

murder of the deceased in connection with the said land dispute

and it is clear from his statement that the petitioner herein

informed him that he got only two options i.e. either to enter into

a compromise with the deceased or to kill her. So, he would

submit that it is a clear case where the petitioner herein has

abetted A1 to commit murder of the deceased. He would further

contend that it has also come to light from the statement of A1

during the course of interrogation that the petitioner herein also

assured A1 that he would take care of the case, if he commits

murder of the deceased. So, he would contend that these facts

clearly prima facie show that there has been a conspiracy even

prior to the commission of murder between the accused in this

case to kill the deceased and that these facts also prima facie

show that the petitioner herein has abetted A1 to commit the

murder of the deceased. So, he contends that the accusation

made against the petitioner regarding commission of the

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

8

offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109 and 212 of IPC

is prima facie well founded and he would finally submit that as it

is a case of murder committed after hatching up a conspiracy by

the accused and as it is also a case of abetment made by the

petitioner to commit murder of the deceased and as

investigation in this case got a long way to go that the petitioner

is not entitled for any anticipatory bail in the facts and

circumstances of the case. So, he prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

8) Perused the record.

9) After the deceased, who sustained bleeding injuries in the

hands of A1, died, the mother of the deceased lodged a report

with the police. On the basis of the said report, initially, a case

under Sections 302 r/w.34 of IPC was registered only against A1

and A2. As noticed supra while narrating the facts of the case,

A1 absconded after the murder took place and thereafter

voluntarily surrendered before the Court on 21.01.2022 and he

was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, Investigating

Officer has filed a petition seeking police custody of A1 in

Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2022. The said petition was allowed and police

custody of A1 was given as per the order dated 27.01.2022

passed by the Court. After he was taken into police custody as

per the orders of the Court, he was interrogated by the police.

At that time, he disclosed that he has approached the petitioner

herein to discuss with him regarding the said land dispute and

that the petitioner informed A1 that he got only two options

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

9

either to enter into a compromise with the deceased in respect of

the said land dispute or to kill her. It is stated that the

petitioner has also assured A1 that he would take care of the

said case if he commits murder of the deceased in this case.

Therefore, from the said material facts elicited during the course

of interrogation of A1, it is prima facie evident that there has

been a conspiracy hatched up between the accused, particularly,

between A1 and A3 before committing the said murder. The

very fact that the petitioner has informed A1 that he got only two

options either to enter into a compromise with the deceased in

respect of the said land dispute or to kill her, clearly establishes

that there was conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased.

The said fact coupled with the fact that the petitioner has

assured A1 that he would take care of the case if she is

murdered also prima facie establishes that the petitioner has

abetted A1 to commit murder of the deceased which is

punishable under Section 109 of IPC. Therefore, it cannot be

said that the accusation made against the petitioner is prima

facie not well founded. In fact, the material on record shows

that the said accusation made against the petitioner is prima

facie well founded. The material on record also discloses that

the petitioner has harboured A1, who is the principal offender,

who committed murder of the deceased, to screen him from legal

punishment as it is stated that the petitioner has initially sent

him to Kadapa and from there to a temple and thereafter, got

him surrendered before the Court. The said facts also prima

facie constitute an offence punishable under Section 212 of IPC.

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

10

10) Therefore, when the investigation so far done and the

material secured during the course of investigation, prima facie,

shows that there has been a conspiracy entered by the petitioner

with the principal offender, who is A1, to commit murder of the

deceased and when the facts of the case also prima facie show

that the petitioner has abetted A1 to commit m urder of the

deceased and when the facts of the case also further show that

the petitioner has harboured the principal offender to screen

him from legal punishment, this Court is of the considered view

that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner.

11) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend that the said conversation as disclosed by A1 during the

course of his interrogation, between him as a client and A3, as

an advocate, is a professional communication and it cannot be

considered as an incriminating evidence against the petitioner,

who is A3, and if the said statement extracted from A1 during

the course of his interrogation is excluded from consideration,

as the same is hit by Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act,

that there is nothing on record to prove the complicity of the

petitioner in commission of the said offence . The said

contention has no merit and it cannot be countenanced.

12) The relevant provision to be considered in this regard is

Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act. It reads thus:

S.129. Confidential communications with legal advisers .—No

one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

11

communication which has taken place between him and his legal

professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which

case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as

may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain

any evidence which he has given, but no others.

A plain reading of the aforesaid Section makes it manifest that a

person cannot be compelled to disclose any confidential

communication which has taken place between him and his

legal professional adviser to the Court. Therefore, it is evident

that the said bar has no application at the time of investigating

the case by the Police. Therefore, the legal validity of the said

statement of A1 is to be examined only when evidence in this

regard is sought to be adduced by the prosecution during the

course of the trial of the case. Further, the said privilege cannot

be invoked when a conspiracy is hatched up for committing an

offence. In 20

th Edition of Law of Evidence authored by

Woodroffe & Amir Ali at page 4972, while dealing with Section

129 of the Evidence Act, it is observed as follows:

“The privilege conferred by Section 126 is not intended for

committing any offence. In order to determine whether a

communication between a solicitor and his client is not

privileged because its purpose was the furtherance of the

crime, the court is entitled to look at the document in

question without requiring the party who objects to the claim

for privilege to prove by evidence de hors the document that it

came into existence for the purpose of furthering crime.”

13) The judgment rendered on the said proposition of law in

the case of Reg. v. Cox and Railton

1 was also considered in the

1

(1884) 14 Q.B. D.153

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

12

case of Reg. v. Governor of Pentonville, Ex p. Osman (D.C.)

2

wherein it is held as follows:

“….Osman is not entitled to claim privilege for any

communication between him and his solicitors, if the purpose of the

communication was the furtherance of crime.”

14) Therefore, from the aforesaid legal position, it is clear that

any communication between the client and his solicitor, if the

purpose of the communication was the furtherance of crime is

not a privileged communication. Therefore, it is clear that the

privilege conferred under Section 129 of the Indian Evidence act

is not intended for committing any offence. So, disclosure of

such communication is not prohibited under Section 129 of the

Indian Evidence Act.

15) Therefore, as the material facts elicited from A1 during the

course of his interrogation clearly show that the conversation/

discussion/communication between him and A3 is for the

purpose of furthering crime, it cannot be construed as a

privileged communication attracting the bar under Section 129

of the Indian Evidence Act. So, the said material elicited from

A1, which prima facie discloses the complicity of the petitioner,

who is A3, in commission of the above offences, cannot be

excluded from consideration. As the police got a clue from the

said statement of A1 regarding the role played by the petitioner

in commission of the above offences, there is every justification

in adding the petitioner as A3 in the above crime and also in

adding Sections 120-B, 109 and 212 of IPC against the

2

(1989) 3 All ER 701

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

13

petitioner herein and to investigate the case in the said

direction.

16) The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioner that as the petitioner has filed a Suit against

the deceased on behalf of her mother-in-law in respect of the

said land that he was falsely implicated in the above crime also

has no merit. It is pertinent to note here that the complicity of

the petitioner in commission of the said offence was disclosed by

A1, who is the principal offender in this crime. Therefore, on the

basis of the said material facts elicited from A1, the petitioner is

now shown as A3 in this crime. So, it cannot be said that he

was falsely implicated as he has filed a civil Suit against the

deceased on behalf of her mother -in-law. So, the said

contention cannot be countenanced.

17) The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the petitioner that the petitioner was falsely implicated on

account of political rivalry also cannot be countenanced. He

would submit that the petitioner belongs to Telugu Desam Party

and as such, he was falsely implicated in this case due to

political rivalry. As can be seen from the facts of the case,

political affairs have nothing to do with the case. The dispute

purely pertains to a land between the family members of the

deceased and A1. The deceased and A1 are not belonging to any

political party. They are also not the politicians. Therefore, even

if the petitioner belongs to Telugu Desam Party, as the dispute is

purely a family dispute relating to a land, it cannot be said

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

14

under any stretch of reasoning that the petitioner was falsely

implicated due to political rivalry. The said contention has no

merit at all.

18) Further, the material on record discloses that the

petitioner has earlier filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail

before this Court in Crl.Petition No.1263 of 2022. The said

petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a petition for grant of

anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. Accordingly, the

said Criminal Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on

10.03.2022 granting liberty as prayed for. Thereafter, the

petitioner has filed anticipatory bail application before the

Sessions Court and the same came was dismissed. So, again

the present Criminal Petition was filed. At this stage, it is to be

noticed that the then learned counsel for the petitioner in the

said Criminal Petition No.1263 of 2022 made elaborate

arguments on behalf of the petitioner in the said Criminal

Petition. After hearing both the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent State on merits, when this Court has expressed its

opinion that there is prima facie case against the petitioner and

that he is not entitled to anticipatory bail, then the then counsel

for the petitioner has withdrawn the said Criminal Petition with

liberty to approach the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory

bail and as the same was dismissed, again the present Criminal

Petition for grant of anticipatory bail was filed.

CMR, J.

Crl.P.No.2543 of 2022

15

19) The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Proddatur also held in his order that in view of the prima facie

material available against the petitioner herein in commission of

the said offence, that it is not just and proper to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

20) Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

_____________________________________________

JUSTICE CHEEKAT I MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date: 22-04-2022.

Note:

L.R. copy to be marked.

B/O

cs