The High Court · 2025

'l . The State of Telanoana Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvde-rabad. 2. srnt G^oplaram Sathoshi tvratha, wo. srinivas, Aqe. 35 years, caste. chakarai, occ. ICDS Supervisor, Kohir Mandat, ZaheerabiO p.Et, nit,. Xoit* ViiLg;;'-'"" Ramachandrapuram l\ilandal, Sangareddy Dstrlii. . ' ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 52g of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the rvremorandum of Grounds of criminir ietition, the High C;;,1 .ry be pleased to set aside the order dated 29.01,2025 passed in crr.-ttr.p. No_ 291 of 2024 in Pocso S C. No. 198 of 2021 on the fire of the Fast iiact ijeciar court for Expeditious Triar and Disposar of Rape and pocso Act cases, sargargddy and consequentry ailow the apprication in crr.M.p. No. 29.r of 2oz4 in POCSO S.C. No. 198 of 2021 and to pass. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section s2g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminir Fetition, the High C;;;i;ry be pleased to srAY aI further proceedings incruding personar appeirance of the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 4 in pocso S.c. No. 19g of 2021 on the fire of the Fast rrack Speciar court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and pocso Act Cases, Sangareddy, pending disposal of main Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate for the petitioners and of Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramala, learned Addl. Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOIIRABLE SRIJUSTICE N' TUKARAMJT C:RIMI NA LPETITIONN o.38 93 of 20 25 ORDER: . Heard tvlr. Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for petitionr:rs/ accused Nos 1 anl 4 and Mr'Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learrrr:d Additional Pttblic )rosecutor appearing for the responderrt No 1- State

2. This criminrl petition has been filed under Sectiorr 528 of Bharatiya Nirgarill Suraksha Sanhita' 2023 (BNSS) with a prayer to quash ther ordrrr dated 29'01 2025 inCrt M P'No 29 I oI 20?-'l in POCSO S.O No l9B of 2021on the file of the Fast Track Special Court for Expedi:iousTrial and Disposal of Rape and PCTCSI) Act Cases, Sar gare JdY 3 The Petiti cners/accused Nos.1 and 4 are facing cl'arges under Seclions 376(2XiXn) of lndian Penal Code' 1860 (for short' 'lPC'), Sections 5 and 6 of The Protection of Children frr)m ljoxual Offences ,\c't, il.'1 2 (for short"POCSO Act') and Seciions; l)' 10 and 1 1 of the F rohibition of Child Marriage Act' 2006' 4. The: instrnt petition is filed under Section 311 of Clode of Criminal Procedure,1973 for short ('CrPC') with a praver tr: recall PWs.'l to 4 for further cross examination' 2 NTR.J cRLP_3893_2025 I --- 't -

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that amidst the trial schedule the defence counsel engaged by the petitioners had given up vakalat, as such the Court appointed legal aid defence counsel and the cross examination of pWs..l to 4 was conducted by that counsel. Now as the petitioners engaged another counsel to defend them intending to recall pWs.1 to 4 for further cross examination. Additionally pleaded that the aspect of age of the victim girl and the other relevant aspects are not put to the witnesses. Thus the Court ought to have accepted the prayer of the petitioners for fair consideration of the case. 6. ln support he cited an authority of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Rajaram prasad yadav v. S/a/e of Bihar _ 2013(14) SC 461 and pleaded that the court ought to have exercised its discretion essentially to reach just decision in the case and to extend fair and proper opportunity to the petitioners/accused in the interests of justice

7. Learned Additional public prosecutor would contend that the petitioners sought for recall of the witnesses on the ground that they have engaged a counsel and nothing is spelt out in the petition for recalling the witnesses. That apart, the trial Court had I I I considered the mi rterials and on considering the merits right y dismissed the Petit on Thus the impugned order ls justifiect I have care'ully perused the materials on record iand tlle 8 submissions 'rf the learned counsel 9. As per the 5 etition averments' it has been stated that as tne petitioners vvants to engage another advocate for further crcss examination of P\A/s 1 to 4' prayed for recall of the witnersses ln this petition ilnvil 1as added by the counsel that the factum o1 age has to be put to the witness/victim Firstly the determinatior of age would tre based on certification as such oral statement r:lay not have crr:denr;e. Secondly the petitioners would have liberty to raiseany discrep ancy in evidence in this regard at approcriate stage, thirdly on this aspect recalling for witnesses would be non rational. Eie th;rt aS it may, in the petition this ground h€ls not been set out ard the reason offered at any stretch cannol lle a justificatiort to irllow the Petition Further the trial CoL.rrt hatving regard to the fa cts and the settled position of law concluderd that the excuse oflered to recall the witnesses is fallintl shc rt to exercise tlre di;cretion, dismissed the petition Consirlered view o1 16;s Qor.rrt at the basis for the petitioners is lacking lustif cation' no impropriet'' ls found in the conclusion recorded irr the cRLP_3893_2025 impugned order and accordingly this petition is liable to be dismissed. 10 ln the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// To SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI SISTANT REGISTRAR A SECTION OFFICER isposal of Rape and 1- The Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and POCSO Act Cases, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District.

2. The Station House Officer, Koheer Police Station , Sangareddy District. 3. One CC to Sri Akkam Eshwar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at I Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies. BJLB/gh w HIGH COURT OATED:2O|0312'025 ORDER CRLP.No.3893 of 2025 :\ q 5 ? !) 9 1 I JrrN 2fr5 o ( > s CRIMINAL PETITIOII IS DISMISSED s-f"h &