The High Court · 2025

IE_ql1t9 gf_Elangana, Represented by pubtic prosecutor, High Court, Hyoerabad, lelangana.

2. The Station House Officer, Narsingi police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana ,.. Respondents/Respondents Petition under section sB2 o! Bhartiya Nagarik suraksha Sanhitha praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoiandum of Grounds of iriminat Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the irhpugned order dated 2310512025 passed in crr. M.p. No.258 of 2o2s in spl.sc. N5. szz orioig on the file of the Fast rrack special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and P-ocso Act cases, Rangareddy Dislrict, at Rajendranagai and consetuenfly allow the same by recalling witness pw1 to plttiz ror crols examination in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c Uis. 582 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminil Fetition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceeding'in spl.sc. No. 972 of 2019 on the file of the Fast rrack special Judge for Triil and Disposal of Rape and PocSo Act cases, Rangareddy District, at Rajendranagar pending disposar of the present criminal revision, in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Allu Midhun Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeired for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CRIMINAL PETITIoN No.6862 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Midhun Kumar Allu. learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents-State. Perused the record.

2. This petition is filed to quash the order dated

23.O5.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.258 of 2025 in S.C.No.972 of 2Ol9 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape artd POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar.

3. The Cr1.M.P.No.258 of 2025 was Iiled to recall the witness PW6/victim for cross examination. Said petition was dismissed raising two grounds i.e. in POCSO cases, the victim cannot be called again and again and that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in hling the petition to reca,ll the witness/PW6. The sarne is challenged on the ground that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner/accused No.1 (for short A1') in the 1 .l peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Firstly, when the witness/PW6 was called for chief examination followed by cross examination, said pW6 has deposed new facts and therefore, the counsel for the petitioner/A1 requested time to consult accused No.2 for cross examination. Said request of the counsel was rejected and an order was passed in the deposition itself rejecting the plea of the counsel for A1 and A2. Aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 hled Cr1.R.C.No.499 of 2024 and the sarne was allowed by this Court vide order dated

25.1I.2024. The order passed by this Court gave restricted scope for cross exarnination of PW6 to the extent of cross examining on the points raised which were not deposed before the learned Magistrate while recording 164 Cr.P.C statement. In the circumstances, there was no opportunity for the counsel for the petitioner/A1 to cross examine PW6 on new facts deposed by PW6 during her examination in chief. Therefore, there is a need for the petitioner/Al to cross exarnine PW6. Thus, Crl.M.P.No.258 of 2025 is frled. \

4. When questioned specifically about the delay in lrling the Crl.M.P.No.258 of 2025, tihe learne<i counsel for the petitioner/A1 stated that this is a peculiar case where the defence taken is that there is a relationship between PW2 i.e. mother of the victim and petitioner/Al. There was no scope for cross exarnination of the pW6 on said facts until a foundation was laid. Said foundation was laid by examining defence witness Nos. 1 to tO. So, it is the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Al that instead of recalling pW6 once for cross examining on the new facts told during examination in chief and reca_ll the witnesses again after examining defence witnr:sses is not feasible and may lead to prejudice. Hence, once the foundation is laid, the present petition was filed to recall PW6.

5. The examination of the facts and circumstances shows that the petitioner/A1 did not get etlective opportunity to cross examine the victim/pW6. No benefit would be accrued to the petitioner/A1 by either delaying 1 -t" l or not cross exa-rnining a crucial witness like victim/PW6, who is claiming that the petitioner/Al has committed heinous offences against her. Further, the Crl.R.C.No.499 of 2024 was filed in the month of March, 2024 wrthin one week of passing of the order rejecting the adjournment for cross examination in the deposition dated 01.03.2024. The said Crl.R.C was disposed of in November, 2024 and the certified copy of the order was issued only 1n April, 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire time period consumed for disposa-l of Cr1.R.C.No.499 of 2024 frorn March, 2024 to Aprll, 2025 cannot be attributed to the petitioner/A1. This Court finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Al that the time period from March, 2024 to April, 2025 during which time, the accused No.2 pursued Cr1.R.C.No.499 of 2024 cannot be held against the pbtitioner/Al herein. Therefore, the factum of delay in hling the petition itself cannot be held against the petitioner/A 1. - 5

6. Coming to the aspect of recalling a POCSO victim again and again, firstly accused No.2 has liled Crl.R.C.No.499 of 2024 to cross examine the witness/PW6 and the same was allowed. However, though the sarne counsel was cross examining the witness for both the accused, in view of the order passed by this Court restricting cross examination to the facts deposed over and abpve the contents of 164 Cr.p.C statement, petitioner/A1 did not get an effective opportunity to cross examine the witness/pW6 on facts which are told about him, which exceed ther contents of 164 Cr.P.C statement with respect to him. 7 Currently, the age of the witness is 20 years and therefore, the rigor of conlining the cross examination of a minor victim in one instance i.e., on the day of chief examination gets diluted as per the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Benga_luru in Crl.p.No.4449 of 2022 dated 06.06.2022, which reads as follows: "The other factor that is necessaty to be noticed is, the current age of the victim. The learned counsel lor the \ F ar-{ d\l \l - l 6 petitioner has placed 6n record Ex.P9, thc study certificate issued by the school in u'hich the victim had studied. As on 18 O7-2O19 the victim u'as about 15 years of age as her date of birth was O2.O1.2004. As on date of hling of the application by the petitioner under Section 31 1 Cr.P.C. which was on 28-03-2022 t}l.e victim had crossed 18 years of age. Once the victim crosses 18 years of age, the rigor of Section 33(5) of the Act gets diluted, as it is the child-victim who shall not be called [or cross examination or rc examination repeatedly. The word 'child' is deflned under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, to mean a person below 18 years of age. On the child attaining 18 years of agc, the rigor under Section 33(5) of the Act gets diluted and sequentially, will not become a bar for seeking further cross-examination of the victim under Section 31 I of the Cr.P.C. It is more so in cases where the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under the Act as there is presumption under Section 29 of the Act against the accused."

8. The defence taken by the petitioner/Al needed examination of defence witnesses 1 to 10 and there is a need to confront the evidence deposed by said witnesses to the victim PW6. Further, there was no effective opportunity to the petitioner/Al for cross exarnination of PW6 while facing serious offences under POCSO Act. Hence, this Court deems it just and necessary recall PW.6 giving one opportunity to the petitioner/A1 to CTOSS ; - 7 exarnine the witness. Therefore, the learned Fast Track Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Rape ald POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar, shall fix a date as per convenience of the victim and give opportunity to the petitioner/A1 for cross examination The counsel for the petitioner/A1 undertakes to complete the cross examination on the same day.

9. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.258 of 2025 in S.C.No.972 of 2019 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court for Trial and Disposa,l of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. REKHA RANI ISTRAR FFICER -_/ To,

1. The Special JudgeforTrial and Disposal ofRapeand Pocso Act cases (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at Rajenderangar.

2. The Station House Officer, Narshingi Police Station, Cyberabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Allu Midhun Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ORDER CRLP.No.6862 o12025 h{ L OF s (;] e i 5 rV "L\ 6\ I a 0u h 7 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAT, PETITION 6