The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. SRINIVAS PODICHETI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA cRl MINALPETI TION No.l0 94 0F 2025 ( ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed to set aside flre order dated 10.07.2025 in Crt.M.p.No.S26 of 2O2S in SC SpL t,to.764 of ZO22 passed by the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L,B.Nagar (for short "trial Court,,).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Srinivas podicheti, learned counser for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramara, rearned Additional public prosecutor respondent No.1 _ State. 3. The learned petitioner counsel submitted that the earlier counsel failed to cross examine pws 1 to 3 on some essential facts and that the petitioner has sought for recaring the witnesses and that his petition was dismissed by the trial Court without any proper reasoning. He further argued that it is the right of th,3 accused to cross examine the witnesses, therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition for recalling pWs .t to 3. \ l { 2

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that PWs 1 to 3 were already cross examined by the earlier counsel and that change in the counsel is not a ground to seek recalling of witnesses. Hence, prayed to dismiss the same.

5. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court is that the petitioner-accused counsel failed to elicit the true facts from pWs 1 to 6, which are essential to establish the innocence of the accused and therefore, filed the petition to recall the said witnesses.

6. The record discloses that the counsel has not attended the Court on the date of examination of PWs 4 to 6 and thus, the cross examination of these witnesses was recorded as nill by the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court has allowed the petition for recall of PWs 4 to 6 for their cross examination. However, PWs 'l to 3 were cross examined at length by the defence counsel. Observing the same, the trial Court has dismissed the petition against pWs 1 to 3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the said orders of dismissing the petition against PWs 1 to 3. He contends that specific questions \ were not posed to these witnesses during cross examination by the \ earlier counsel and that now there is a change in the counsel and he a 3 wants to cross examine the witnesses on the new lacts that were elicited during their chief examination

7. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of lhe High Court of Madras in S.Ganeshan y. Statel, wherein it was treld that if the witnesses are not cross examined the evidence stanrls un rebutted and it would amount to a case of no evidence, resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and an application to recall the witnesses was allowed. But in the present case, PWs 'l to 3 were already cross examined, thus, the facts of the cited decision differ with those in the c,ase on hand. Hence, the same is not applicable to the case on hand

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a rJecision of the Apex Court in Rajaram Prasad yadav v. State of tlihaf. ln the said case the Apex Court has discussed the various principles to be followed by the Courts while dealing with the applications under Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C. and has held that the said polver under 311 Cr.P.C. has to be invoked by the Cou( only in order to meet the endsbf justice for strong and valid reasons and the s;ame must be \ exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should ' Lews guaoy zozz '1zor:; ra scc not .r t; a 4 bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right.

9. ln State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar yadav3, the Apex Court has held that change of counsel is not a ground to recall the witness.

10. ln the present case pWs 1 to 3 were cross examined by the earlier counser but the contention of the petitioner is that the earrier counsel failed to pose certain questions and thus, the present counsel intends to cross examine the said witnesses again. pWs 1 to 3 are none other than the mother and uncle of the victim and victim. The lav,r is well setfled that they should not be traumatized by calling them time and again to the cou(. since the said witnesses were already cross examined at length by the earlier counsel, recalling them at the reguest of the present counsel is not just and proper. \ 1 (2016) 2 SCC 4O2 5

11. ln view of the above discussion and in the light of the said decisions, it is opined that the orders passed by the trial Court dismissing the petition to recail pws 'r to 3 is found t. be based on sound reasoning, hence, therefore, the same is upheld and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall r;tand closed SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSIiJTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// It SECTION OFFICER To, 1' The Fasl Track Speciar Judge for Trial and Disposar of Rape and pocso Act ^ Cases,_Ranga Reddy Distict, at L.B. Nagar. 2. One CC to Sri. SR|NIVAS pODtCHETt,Advocate 3. Two CCs to pUBLtC at Hyderabad [OUT]. High Cou(for the State of Tetangana 'ROSECUTOR, tOpUCl.

4. Two CD Copies TTS/PSL \Y HIGH COURT l I f DATED: 22lOBl2O25 ORDER CRLP.No.10394 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED ,d^ X$r /' ;' i. -) /rt.tr -'^{ ,)_ \:t .a r.{E Srj 'e 2 6 lou 2i5 a .L * o\ €sr zrctr'.o. *