The High Court · 2025

Vanaparthy Srnivas @ Srinu, S/o Narayana, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Government Teacher R/o H. No 8- 7- 83/10, Sri Venkateshwara Cotoiry, Near Church, B. N. Reddy Nagar, Hasthinapuram, Hyderabad. AND ...pETiTlONER/ Accuied The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. -...RESPONDEI\IT lA NO:'f OF 2023 Petition unde' Section 482 of cr.p.c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in s. c. No. 775 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of pocso Act cases, Ranga Reddy Distri:t. At L. B Nagar by discharging the petitioneriAccused for the offences under llection 354, 354 - D of lpc, section 12 of rhe protection of children from sexual offences Act, pending disposal of the above criminal revision ca se. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. KIRAN PALAKURTHI Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CFIIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 659 OF 2023 Crl.Revision Case Under Section 397 Rl/w. 401 of Cr.p.C. aggrieved by the order dated 25-09-2023 in crl.M.p.No. 604 of 2023 in s.c. No. lli.Lt zozz on the file of the court of the special sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of Cases Under POCSTf Act, Ranga Reddy District atL.B.Nagar Between: Vanaparthy Government Church, B. N Sinivas alias Srinu, S/o Narayana, Aged about 57 years, Teacher R/o H. No. 8-7-$nA, Sri Venkateshwara C5lony,' Reddy Nagar, Hasthinapuram, Hyderabad. Occ Near ..PETITIONER/ Accused AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in S. C. No.772 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal of POGSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District, At L. B. Nagar by discharging the PetitioneriAccused for the offences under Section 354, 354 - D of lPC, Section 12 o'f The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Section 3(1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KIRAN PALAKURTHI Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: THE J{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINALITEVISIoN CASE Nos.660. 658 & 65!LAE2Q23 COMMON ORDER: 1 Since the petitioner in all the revision cases is one and the same and since the point involved in all the cases is also one and the same, all these criminal re:vision cases are being disposed of by this common order. 2 Crl.R.C.No.65B of 2023 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated

25.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.605 of 2023 in S.C.No.775 of 2002, on the file of the Colrrt of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to discharge the petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D of IPC and Section t2 of POCSO Act. 3 Crl.R.C.No.559 of 2023 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated

25.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.604 of 2023 in S.C.No.772 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to discharge the petitioner from rhe offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D gf - IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of 2 S.C/S.T (PoA) Amendment Act; and 4 Crl.R.C.No.660 of 2023 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated

25.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.606 of 2023 in S.C.No.776 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B' Nagar and to discharge the petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of S.C/S.T (PoA) Amendment Act. 5 The facts leading to filing of the above criminal revision cases are that the de facto complainants lodged reports before the police Maheswaram that the petitioner who has been working as English teacher in ZP HS school of Maheswaram was misbehaving with the 7th class girl students by touching their waists and even talking with them in vulgar language. Basing on the above complaints, three cases were registered against the petitioner for the offences stated supra. 6 It is to be noted from the back ground of the cases that during the coupseof investigation the prosecution besides recording the statemepts \ 3 of the victims and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.p.C, also got recorded the statements of the victim girls under Section 164 Cr.p.C. through the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Maheswaram. 7 While the above cases were pending and at the time of framing of charges, the petitioner filed the above criminal petitions under section 227 Cr.P.C. in all the cases seeking to discharge from the prosecution. The learned trial Judge by order dated 25.09.2023 dismissed all the petitions separately. Hence these revision cases. 8 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in all the criminal revision cases is that the petitioner never committed the alleged offence and he never harassed the girls in any manner, he never misbehaved with the students at any point of time. By relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in state vs. Anill the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victims were examined under Section 164 cr.P.c. wherein they have not attributed anything adversely to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he relied on the I 2019 SCC OnLine Det 10995 4 judgments of the apex Court in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State ot Maharashtrl, Yogesh @ Sachin Jagadish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtrf, State of Bihar us. Ramesh Singh and Prafulla Kumar Samal| and Rukmini Naruekar vs. Vijaya satardekaf . 9 In a criminal trial, the duty of the prosecution is to produce evidences before the Court for proving the fact relating to the guilt of the accused. The duty of the Court is to evaluate the evidences only which are substantive in nature. The evidences become substantive, when the same are produced either in oral or documentary before the Court on oath in presence of the accused. Therefore, at the time of evaluating the evidences and appreciating the materials, the Court has to only look into the substantive evidences. 10 State vs. Anil (1 supra) heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a case where the trial court discharged the respondent therein for the offence punlshable under Sections 354A IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, basing on the Section 164 Cr.P.C . 'z (2002) 2 scc 13s r (2008) 10 scc a94 o rststt.ttSt{ ' AIR 2oo9 sc 1013 5 statements of the victims. The State preferred revision against the order of the learned trial Court. By dismissing the said review, the Delhi High Courtobserved at para Nos.7,8,9, 10 and 11 as follows:

7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the learned ASJ had observr:d that the statement of the victim and the complainant, recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., did not reflect that the respondent committed any offensive act upon the victims or he had any sexual intent. It is further observed that the main ingredients of Section 12 of the POCSO Act, i.i:., sexual intent is missing in the entire act of the respondent and therefore the prima facie offence of sexual harassment was not made out against him and he was accordingly discharged'

8. On perusal of statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. of the victim wherein she stated that she along with her four friends were playing on the railway lines when the respondent asked them that after playing, they all should come to his house and he will give them Rs. 2. She did not go to his house anrl told this fact to her elder sister.

9. In the said statement the victim has not stated anything regarding any sexual intent or sexual assault; however, the FIR was registered on the statement made by her mother wherein she has made some allegations aqainst the respondent.

10. The fact remains that the victim did not mention any act of sexual assault or sexual intent, therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby discharging the respondent.

11. Finding no merits in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application. 11 The law is very clear that the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not sJbstantive evidences, but these can be used as previous statement under Section 157 of Evidence Act. There cannot be any I 6 dispute that the statements recorded by ludicial I Class Magistrate, under Section 164, Cr.P.C. can be used to corroborate the evidence as required under Section 156 of the Indian Evidence Ac', 1872. The statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction. As a matter of fact, statement recorded under Sectlon 164 of Cr.P.C can also be used only for the purposes as provided under Sections 145 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The reason behind the above principle is that these above statements are always recorded in absence of the accused persons. Similarly, the facts mentioned in First Information Report are also not substantive in nature and it can only be used for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction to it's maker. L2 In the case on hand, as seen from the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the victims, all the victim girls have stated that the petitioner touched their hands and shoulders. So, there is prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences referred above. Of course, whether the petitioner has touched them with any ill-motlve or not has to be elicited during the course of trial. The relief of discharge from the charged offences is nothing but throttling the prosecution at the threshold, .. \ 7 without allowing the materials in support of it to see the light of the day, cannot be said to be as an exercise done to secure interests of justice whereas it can only be stated that such exercise resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it is not justified in bringing abrupt termination of the proceedings qua the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by the Iearned counsel for the petitioner have no bearing on the case on hand. 13 For the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the trial couft has not committed any irregularity much less any material irregularity in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to discharge. 14 Accordingly, all the criminal revision cases are dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the cases in accordance with law and without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. 15 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all these criminal revision cases, are also dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR I ,,.',/ SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial and Pisposal ofCases Under POCSO Act. Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. v

2. The Station House Officer , Maheshwaram Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Two CCS to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanagana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

4. One CC to SRl. KIRAN PALAKURTHI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies kul/PSl / HIGH COURT DAIED:1910212025 \ COMMON ORDER ( c -r tlE STI -s .) 09lun ,ffi CRLRC.Nos.660, 658 and 659 of 2023 Dc.. rri TC tr I-c g I 2 /o? , / DISMISSING THt] AI,I- ('RIMINAI- REVTSION CASES