Application for Special Leave Petition
Start with the court name at the top — e.g., “In the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)”.
Write the case number of this petition (leave blank if it’s new). Below that, mention the old case details (Sessions Case number, FIR number, Police Station, etc.).
Then, write “In the matter of:” and explain that it’s an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for Special Leave to Appeal. Also state which judgment you are challenging (with date and court name).
After that, mention who is filing the case — the defacto complainant (with name, father’s name, address).
Next, list the respondents — (1) accused persons with their details and (2) the State of Telangana.
Add the salutation: “To The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the Hon’ble High Court.”
Then start the main petition with “Most Respectfully Sheweth:” and give it in numbered points:
Tell the background: how the FIR was filed, under what sections, and what the police did.
Mention how the trial went — witnesses, evidence, and how finally the Sessions Court acquitted the accused.
Say why the acquittal is wrong — judge ignored evidence, did not appreciate witness statements properly, or misapplied the law.
State that the complainant is aggrieved and wants to challenge the acquittal.
After that, add “Grounds” in bullet points or Roman numbers. Each ground should be one reason why the Sessions Court judgment is wrong. (e.g., evidence was ignored, witness credibility not appreciated, post-mortem report not considered properly, etc.).
Then add a Prayer: ask the High Court to admit the appeal, call for the trial court record, set aside the acquittal, and pass proper orders.
Finally, write the verification/affidavit — complainant swears that everything stated is true, signs it with date, place, and advocate’s signature.
Sample Draft
Note:
All names, dates, places, and facts mentioned in this draft are purely imaginary and used only for illustrative purposes. They do not relate to any real person, case, or incident.
Application for Special Leave to Appeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD (CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
C.R.M.S.P.L. No. ___ of 2024
In the matter of :
An application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of Special Leave to appeal in terms of proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
And
In the matter of : Judgement and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District and Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Karimnagar, in connection with Session Trial No.14/2018 Corresponding to Sessions Case No.67/2017 arising out of Husnabad Police Station Case No.142 of 2016 dated 22.11.2016 under Section 498A/306 alternative under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charge framed under section under section 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In the matter of : Rajesh Reddy, son of Late Narasimha Reddy, residing at H.No. 4-57, Husnabad Village & Mandal, District – Siddipet, Telangana.
…Defacto Complainant /Appellant
– Versus –
1. Anil Kumar, son of Late Ramesh,
2. Suresh Kumar, son of Late Ramesh,
3. Kavitha, wife of Suresh Kumar,
4. Padma, wife of Anil Kumar,
Nos.1 and 3 residing at Husnabad Village & Mandal,
District – Siddipet, Telangana and
Nos. 2 and 4 residing at Karimnagar Town,
Telangana.
5. Mahesh Reddy, son of Balaram Reddy,
residing at Village Kothapalli,
P.S. – Karimnagar Rural,
District – Karimnagar, Telangana.
…Respondents/Accused
6. The State of Telangana
… Respondent
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.
The humble petition on behalf of the abovenamed Defacto Complainant/Appellant –
Most Respectfully Sheweth :
1. That the Appellant/Defacto complainant had lodged a First Information Report alleging offences punishable under Section 498A/306 alternatively under Section 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Respondents/Accused persons and a case was registered being Husnabad Police Station Case No.142 of 2016 and after investigation police submitted charge sheet against the respondents under Section 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly charge was framed but however on being moved before this Hon’ble Court pursuant to the direction alternative charge under Section 302 was framed.
2. That the prosecution story as revealed in the First Information Report was to the effect that the defacto complainant Rajesh Reddy lodged a written complaint with the officer-in-charge of Husnabad Police Station stating that his sister, the victim was married with the accused Anil Kumar as per Hindu Rites and Custom and after the marriage lived at her matrimonial house and gave birth to male child who was 7 years old at the time of incident and after some time of the marriage the accused husband along with the other members of in laws put pressure upon the victim to bring money from her father’s house, but parents were failed to meet the demand and the accused persons used to torture her physically and mentally and assaulted her. On the night between 22.11.2016 at about 00 hour the defacto complainant received a phone call from the elder brother of the accused husband informing that the victim consumed poison and on reaching the house of the accused the complainant found that the victim was laid down on the verandah covered by cloth. On removing the cloth defacto complainant found his sister was still breathing and shifted the victim to the Karimnagar Hospital where it was declared that the victim was brought dead.
3. That on completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted by the investigating agency under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. That subsequently after submission of charge sheet the case was committed to the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Karimnagar, for trying the accused persons/respondents being the offence committed under Sections 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. That the charge was framed against the accused persons/respondents to the offence under sections 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the charge so framed was read over and explained to the accused/respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. That in order to prove the charge during the course of trial prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses while the defence examined none witness in their defence.
7. That the Learned Trial Judge on perusing the evidence on record and also examining the accused/respondents under Section 313 of the code of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties was pleased by his judgement and order dated 15.03.2024 to hold the accused persons/respondents not guilty and acquitted them of the charge for the commission of the offences punishable under sections 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. That it is submitted that the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record on proper perspective as such the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is perverse and liable to be set aside.
9. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in connection with Sessions Trial No.14/2018 and Sessions Case No.67/2017 arising out of Husnabad Police Station Case No.142 of 2016 whereby the accused persons/respondents acquitted from the charges under sections 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the appellant/petitioner preferred an application for grant of Special Leave to Appeal under section 378(4) of the code of Criminal Procedure in terms of proviso to section 372 of the code of Criminal Procedure before this Hon’ble High Court.
10. That pursuant to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, the appellant begs to prefer this memorandum of appeal before this Hon’ble Court on the following amongst other :-
GROUNDS
I. For that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is a product of non application of judicial mind on the part of the Learned Trial Judge and as such the same is liable to be set aside forthwith;
II. For that the evidence on record does not justify the acquittal of the accused persons under sections 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and as such the impugned judgement of acquittal is liable to be set aside;
III. For that the Learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidences of vital witnesses in its proper terms;
IV. For that the Learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 were sufficient to convict the accused under sections 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860;
V. For that the Learned Trial Judge totally misdirected himself to appreciate the evidence of PW3, the eye witness, on mere conjecture and surmises and the judgement and order of acquittal passed on such appreciation is perverse and liable to be set aside.
VI. For that the Learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt by the clinching evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution witnesses;
VII. For that the Learned Trial Judge miserable failed to appreciate the evidence of PW3 in proper perspective in whose presence the entire incident took place and the Learned Trial Court entirely proceeded on wrong premises discarding the evidence of PW3 in passing the impugned judgement and order of acquittal;
VIII. For that the Learned Trial Judge misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record in passing the impugned judgement and order of acquittal;
IX. For that the Ld. Trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of PW3 visa vise the post mortem report in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed on such failure is perverse and liable to be set aside.
X. For that the Learned Trial Judge failed both in law and in facts in passing the impugned judgement and order of acquittal.
XI. For that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is otherwise bad in law and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
XII. For that the Learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW3 since corroborated by the post mortem Report of the deceased, proved the prosecution case at hilt;
11. That unless and until orders are passed in favour of the appellant/petitioner as prayed for hearing there shall be gross miscarriage of Justice which is unwarranted in the eye of law.
12. That the instant matter invites the serious appreciation of fact and law on merit since the same is concerned with the serious threat to society at large.
13. That this application is made bonafide and for the ends of justice.
In the circumstances, it is prayed that Your Lordships would graciously be pleased to admit this appeal, issue usual notices, call for the record, peruse the same, after hearing all the parties and on perusal of records set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of acquittal dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Karimnagar in connection with Sessions Trial No.14/2018 corresponding to Sessions Case No.67/2017 arising out of Husnabad Police Station Case No.142 of 2016 dated 22.11.2016 under Sections 498A/306/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and/or pass such other order/orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
And your appellant as in duty bound shall ever pray.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Rajesh Reddy, son of Late Narasimha Reddy, residing at H.No. 4-57, Husnabad Village & Mandal, District – Siddipet, Telangana, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1. That I am the petitioner of the instant case, as such I am well acquainted and conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and competent enough to affirm this affidavit.
2. That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the foregoing application are true to my knowledge, those made in paragraphs 5 to 9 are matters of record which I verily believe to be true and those made in rest of the paragraphs are my respectful submission before this Hon’ble Court.
Sd/- Rajesh Reddy (Deponent)
Prepared in my office.
Sd/- Advocate
Solemnly affirmed before me on this the 20th day of March, 2024. Sd/- COMMISSIONER
