ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ) contending that in-spite of vehement objection from the learned counsel for the accused, the trial Court i.e. learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SC/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nalgonda on 11.06.2024 and 09.09.2024 recorded the inadmissible portion of alleged confession statement of the petitioner through LW69, who is examined as PW17/panch witness for confession, seizure and panchanama of accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 and prayed this Court to call for the records from the trial Court pertaining to SC No.70 of 2019 and set aside/delete the said inadmissible evidence and to direct the trial Court to re-open the case for further cross- examination of PW17. 2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel representing on behalf of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1 st respondent/State. 3. The brief facts that lead to registration of SC No.70 of 2019 on the file of the trial Court are that son of de-facto complainant /Perumalla Balaswami namely Pranay Kumar and daughter of Thirunagaru Maruthi Rao/A1 namely Amrutha Varshini fell in love and married against the wishes of said Maruthi Rao and during their conjugal life, said Amrtha Varshini became pregnant and on 14.09.2018 at about 01.30 PM, when Pranay Kumar and Amrutha Varshini along with wife of the de-facto complainant namely Premalatha were returning back from Jyothi Hospital, Miryalaguda, after attending medical check-up, one unknown person suddenly came with a knife and dealt severe blows on the head of Pranay Kumar and fled away due to which said Pranay Kumar sustained severe bleeding injuries on head and neck, collapsed and died on the spot. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police alleging that since daughter of Maruthi Rao married his son, who does not belong to their caste, said Maruthi Rao along with his brother T.Sravan Kumar/the petitioner herein hired a killer and got murdered his son through the said killer. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police alleging that since daughter of Maruthi Rao married his son, who does not belong to their caste, said Maruthi Rao along with his brother T.Sravan Kumar/the petitioner herein hired a killer and got murdered his son through the said killer. The police of Miryalaguda registered Crime in FIR No.139 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 120(B) read with 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act and after completion of investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 120(B) read with 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 25(IA) and 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959. The trial Court took cognizance of the said offences against the accused and numbered the said charge-sheet as SC No.70 of 2019 and proceeded with the trial, after duly complying all the required procedural aspects. 4. During the course of trial, as per docket order dated 20.06.2024 the trial Court rejected the objection raised by learned counsel for the accused Nos.1, 4 and 6, who vehemently opposed recording of confession statement of accused and taking the said confession into record as it is hit by Section 27 of Evidence Act. The trial Court while rejecting the said objection of the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1, 4 and 6, categorically held that confession statement is not admissible in evidence but it is the relevant fact as such it has to come on record to discover the fact and it is the burden of the prosecution to prove that the said confession statement is as per Sections 24, 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and has to establish that the said confession statement is voluntarily made and there is no inducement or force and it is fair and made without any undue influence. The trial Court, directed the prosecution to proceed with recording the evidence in accordance with law and to serve summons to PW17 and also to LWs.66 to 68 and 70 to 73. 5. The trial Court, directed the prosecution to proceed with recording the evidence in accordance with law and to serve summons to PW17 and also to LWs.66 to 68 and 70 to 73. 5. Aggrieved by the said docket order dated 20.06.2024, passed in SC No.70 of 2019 on the file of the trial Court, the accused filed Criminal Petition Nos.6894 of 2024 and 6887 of 2024 before this Court seeking to set aside the docket order dated 20.06.2024, to direct the trial Court to record the relevant portion of discovery of fact which leads to recovery of material object and direct to expunge the evidence recorded through PW17 except to the extent, which leads to recovery of material objects and also to delete the inadmissible portion of evidence of PW17 in so far as it relates to confessions of accused Nos.1 and 6. Wherein, this Court ordered to consider the statement of PW17 to the extent which is admissible as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and remaining cannot be considered while deciding the matter. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that contrary to such directions by this Court, the trial Court ventured to proceed with recording of inadmissible portion of alleged confession statement of the petitioner in-spite of resistance of learned counsel for the accused. It is further contended that in that process the trial Court on 09.09.2024 recorded on the docket that the petitioner admitted his act of beating Amrutha when she went to a movie with the deceased and thereafter he beat both the deceased and Amrutha in Aryasamaj Mandir and accused Nos.1 and 6 intended to kill Pranay and on 14.09.2018 accused Nos.5 and 6 went to Suryapet on the call of accused No.1 and the police arrested them. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the learned counsel for the accused requested the trial Court to defer the cross-examination of PW17, the trial Court closed the cross-examination for accused Nos.5 and 7 and posted the matter for further evidence. 7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the learned counsel for the accused requested the trial Court to defer the cross-examination of PW17, the trial Court closed the cross-examination for accused Nos.5 and 7 and posted the matter for further evidence. 7. The grounds urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioner through this criminal revision case, succinctly, are that the trial Court did not consider the objection raised on behalf of the accused while recording the inadmissible portion of confession statement of accused through PW17 and it has passed orders without considering the decisions filed and rival contentions advanced on either side and hence, the inadmissible portion of confession of accused recorded through PW17 by the trial Court is to be expunged. While submitting the above, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions rendered in Venkatesh @ Chanda Vs. The State of Karnataka in Crl.A.Nos.476-1477 of 2018 of Hon’ble Apex Court, Pulukuri Kottaa and others Vs. Emperor and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SUO Moto Writ (Crl.) No.1 of 2017. Basing on the above decisions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that confessions are only admissible when they lead to discovery of material facts such as recovery of material objects and that the prosecution should ensure fairness in obtaining confessions and there should be direct connection between the confession and physical evidence. 8. On the other hand, learned assistant public prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1 State vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that there is no error or perversity in the findings of the trial Court in challenge since the prosecution has to prove the veracity and genuine nature of the confession statements of the accused, marked through the prosecution witnesses and that the accused has every opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses through whom the confessional statements are recoded. Stating thus, he requested to dismiss the present criminal revision case. 9. This Court perused the material available on record including the impugned order and heard the rival contentions advanced on either side. Stating thus, he requested to dismiss the present criminal revision case. 9. This Court perused the material available on record including the impugned order and heard the rival contentions advanced on either side. The main contention advanced on behalf the petitioner is that recording of inadmissible portion of evidence with regard to the confessional statements of the accused through prosecution witness suffers the accused and that the High Court has also directed the trial Court not to record the inadmissible portion of evidence but the trial Court, ignoring the said factum, is proceeding further with recording the inadmissible portions also and hence, they approached this Court. The learned assistant public prosecutor objected the present criminal revision case contending that if any portion is deposed by the witness and recorded by the Court, if it is far from truth or inadmissible in evidence, the accused have every chance of cross-examining the said witness to elicit the truth and deny the said inadmissible portion. 10. As per orders in Crl.P.Nos.6887 and 6894 of 2024 this Court, pertaining to the same case, directed the trial Court to consider the statement of PW17 to the extent which is admissible as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and remaining cannot be considered while deciding the matter. When the impugned order is perused, the trial Court has categorically held that the discovery of fact is only admissible in evidence but to discover a fact the prosecution has to elicit the relevant facts from the mouth of the witnesses as such, it is necessary to record the relevant facts and the admissibility will be decided in the judgment. The trial Court, basing on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramanandh @ Nandla Bharathi Vs. State of UP in Crl.A.Nos.64-65 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu Gopinath Shinde , [ (2000) 6 SCC 269 ] further held that for the benefit of both the parties it is necessary that the information given should be recorded and proved and if not so  recorded the exact information must be adduced through evidence and that the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered but the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The trial Court held that confession statement is not admissible in evidence but it is the relevant fact as such it has to come on record to discover at fact and it is the burden on the prosecution to prove that the said confession statement is as per Sections 24, 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and has to establish that the said confession statement is voluntarily made and there is no inducement and there was no force and it is fair and without any undue influence. Hence, a conjoint reading of orders referred to above, goes to show that discretion is left with the trial Court to evaluate the evidence basing on its admissibility while deciding the matter. 11. The law is settled that extra-judicial confessions require independent corroboration before placing reliance. Further, the confessions can be retracted if the confessor can show that the confession was made under inducement, threat or promise. 12. That being the settled proposition of law and crux of the findings in the orders referred to above, when the grounds of the present criminal revision case are tested on the touchstone of the above factual matrix, no doubt the accused has every opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witnesses through whom the confessions were recorded in evidence and further, the prosecuting agency is bound to establish the truth or otherwise of their deposition with regard to the confessional statements and that the said confessional statements are made voluntarily without any undue influence or coercion. However, the contention of the petitioner is that when they requested to defer the cross-examination of PW17, stating that since the trial Court is proceeding with recording the inadmissible evidence, they are intending to file a revision, the trial Court instead of giving them opportunity, has closed the cross-examination of PW17 on behalf of accused Nos.5 and 7 on 09.09.2024 and issued summons to the next witnesses. Basing on the above said fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that they missed the opportunity of cross-examining PW17 to elicit the truth in his deposition. Admittedly, accused Nos.5 or 7 are not the petitioners herein. 13. Basing on the above said fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that they missed the opportunity of cross-examining PW17 to elicit the truth in his deposition. Admittedly, accused Nos.5 or 7 are not the petitioners herein. 13. Record goes to show that the accused were given sufficient opportunity to approach this Court to challenge the findings of the trial Court dated 20.06.2024 in SC No.70 of 2019 and upon disposal of criminal petition Nos.6887 and 6894 of 2024 by this Court, the accused again sought time before the trial Court stating that they would knock the doors of this Court again with the similar relief, as sought in the above criminal petitions. In view of such practice, no doubt, the proceedings before the trial Court get delayed and the said practice cannot be permitted. Viewed from the above angle, the present criminal revision case deserves for dismissal. 14. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.