The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor' High Court' Hyderabad, Telangana'

2. The Station House Officer, Narsingi Police Station' Hyderabad' Telangana' Respondents/comPlai nants Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praylg that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrr'li O.rnOr of Criminal-Piition, the High Co-urt-may be pleased to quash tfre impugned orOer dated O6tO2l2O25 passed in Crl M P No' 591 ot 2024 in SPL.SC. r.fli. SiZ-oi 2019 on the file of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Oispos,t of nape and POCSO Act Cases' Rangareddy District' allow the same recalling witnesses PW1 and at Raiendranagar and Fwi?ot cross Lxamination in the interest of justice' "on.tq'"nity t.A. NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandrr'iiO.rnAu ot Cri*in"ip"ltition, the High Court.may.be oleased to stay all turtner pricJeaini in SPL SC No 972 of 2019 on the file of the Disposal of Rape and Pocso Act-cases' f;J;;"k$U;iJ;4"'i"; i'irr nri"nJiun'i"' p"noing disposal of the present criminal Ranoareddv District, "t revis]on, in ihe interest of justice' "no This Petition coming on for hearing' upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petitiJn and upon hearing the arguments of sri AIlu Midhun i i I I I I I I i i 1<--.;F,f Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners and Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents. Sri E Ganesh, Assistant public The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITIoN NO.2 584 oF 20/25 ORDER: The present criminal petition 'is ' filed by petitioners/ accused under Section 528 of B'N'S'S'' seeking to quash the impugned order dated 06 'O2 '2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.59 I of 2024 in SPL'SC No972 of 2019 on the file of the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POSCO Act Cases' Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

2. Heard Sri Allu Midhun Kumar' learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E'Ganesh' learned assistant public prosecutor for lhe respondents/ State'

3. SPL.SC No'972 of 2Ol9 is a case registered for the offencesunderSections363,3T6(3)IPCandSection5readwith Section 6 of the POSCO Act, 2Ol2 on the allegation that thc accused.No.lcommittedrapeonaminorvictim,'whowashis student at a Tennis Academy and accused No'2 abducted her at the behest of accused No' 1 ' 4 During the course of trial, the petitioners hled Crl'MP No.59 1 of 2024 under Sgption 311 Cr'P'C'' to recall PWs' 1 and 2' /\ l.l l I I I .. i Page 2 of6 for further cross-examination to substantiate their defence that in view of extra-marital affair between the accused No.1 and pW2, by using the minor child as a tool, they have implicated the petitioners in a false case with serious allegations. The learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the said application contending that the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and accused have also examined defence witnesses and the case was at arguments stage and that when the learned defence counsel tried to put a question to pW2 on the alleged aspect of her affair with accused No. 1, the trial Court prevented him keeping in view the trauma and tribulations undergone by the victim and holding that testifying such question is nothing but tecondary victimization of not only the victim, but her parents.

5. The trial Court holding that in view of Sections 29 and 30 of POSCO Act, if at all the presumptions are drawn in favour of the prosecution, it is for the accusecl to prove the contra that they have not committed the offence and that; the aspect of alleged affair between the accused No.1 and pW2, which is sought to be put to PW2 by the accused, is no way concerned with the case of the prosecution and if at all the accused are permitted to suggest the same to pW2 by recalling her, it would only amount to. : t I I i Page 3 of6 secondary victimization of not only the victim' but also her parents, dismissed the said appiication'

6. Challenging the said order' the petitioners hled the present criminal petition mainly contending that the defence witnessesi.e.DWs.ltolohavemeticulouslylaidasubstantial foundation on the facts surrounding the affair of PW2 with the accusedNo.landhence,itisjustandnecessarytorecallPWs.l and 2. The trial Court had grossiy erred in rejecting the right of the petitioners to cross-examine the crucial witnesses' which is nothing but refusing the accused to have a fair and full trial' The trial Court basing on the sentimental considerations by overriding the principles of natural justice had rejected the claim of the a safeguard against the petitioners. Section 311 Cr'P'C', is miscarriage of justice, as it empowers the Court to recall witnesses at any stage of trial if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case' Secondary victimization is meant to protect the victims from unnecessary harassment and trauma' butitcannotbeusedasashieldtopreventlegitimateand relevant cross-examination, especially when the questions pertain to thd motive Lrehind the case' The rights of the accused cannot be tramptld. The Courts are duty-bound to ensure that the accused is not condemned to draconian punishment without a fair and \ .-l *.-*--*,- - s I Page 4 of6 just opportunity to confront and chailenge the proseculion,s evidence.

7. The learned counscl for the petitioners, to substantiate his grounds, relied upon the decisions rendered in Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Biharl, State of Rajasthan Vs. Anand Pal Singhz, Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat3 and Natasha Singh Vs. CBI+.

8. On the othcr hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor vehemently opposed thc present criminal petition mainly contending that thc grounds urgeci herein do not have any force warranting interference of this Court with the well considered order of the trial Court since they were answered by the trial Court by giving convincing lindines.

9. This Court perused the rccord inctuding the impugned order and heard the rival contentions advanced on either side. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petltioners is that recall of pWs. 1 and 2 is essential to substantiate their defence and hence, they cannot be deprived of ' 1zo riy ra scc +o r '(zoiz) Io scc:+o ' 1zoo+y + scc t-ss 1zo l3y s scc u+ t u l l I . &*rt lrt 'n.s4:1"r/ Page 5 of6 I I their legitimate right of fair trial' The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the evidence of PWs'1 and 2 has been closed on l2.Ol '2024 ' He further subrnits that after completion of examination of ten witnesses' they came to know about the crucial aspect of affair of PW2 with accused No 1 and accordingly, they hled an application before the trial Court to recall PWs.1 and 2, but tbe trial Court in a mechanical manner' had dismissed the same' "u'"t

10. As rightty held by the trial Court it is for the accused to prove the contra that they have not committed the offence and that, the aspect of alleged affair between the accused No 1 and i the prosecution and the PW2 is no way concerned with the same cannot iay foundation to recall PWs l and 2 for further cross-examination. Further, the main case is pending from the year 2Ol9 and reopening the matter would result in further delay' In that view of the matLer, this Court sees no reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order' However' this Court deems it appropriate to direct lhe trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year'

11. In the result, the present dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous criminal petition is applications, if any pending, shali also stand closed. sD/. MOHD.ISMAIL TY REGISTRAR E //TRUE COPYII To,

1. The Special Judoe for E-rpeditious Trail and Dispo ^ Cases(Fast Traci Court) . Cyberabad at Raiendra 2 rhe starion House officer, Nffiiili;il;H;'il", 3 Two CCs to the puOtic prosecuto;:H,g;';;[;:,, j _One CC to Sri Allu Midhun Kumar, Advocate [OpU 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad lOUT) /s CTION OFFICER sal of Rape and pOSCO Hyderabad he State of Telangana at ADK/PSL {f I I i , I I I 1 I I l I I I i I l I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ORDER 1rr- - ,Al e J o o 13 IIJE 2t6 ($( GRLP.No.2584 of 2025 t t) f.s.arc,tt DISMISSING THE CRLP il. Z) i I I I