RADHAN ORS v. STATE of OD SHAI. The contention of

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing 1te l'/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunr,: ts of Sri Y.ASHOK RAJ, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jitender Rao Ve,: amalla Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13930 of 2025 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking the Court to set-aside the order dated 01 .O9.2O25 passed in Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2024 in SC (POCSO) No.B2 of 2022, on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court to try the offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Acl, 2012, Siddipet and thereby to allow the application filed under Section 31 1 Crl.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.222 ot 2024 permitting the petitioner to recall PWs 1 & 2 for further cross-examination for proper adjudication of the case.

2. Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

3. Learned petitioner's counsel has submitted that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C. that PWs 1 & 2 should be recalled for further cross-examination. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that they failed to pose certain relevant questions to the witnesses during /t I 2 EfD,] crl-P No.13930 )A25 cross-examination and that he must be given an( I rer chance to cross-examine PWs 1 & 2. Hence filed a petition tr -c'call the said witnesses vide Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2024, which was cir rnissed by the Trial Court on 01.092025 He therefore prayed to se t aside the sard orders and to direct the Trial Court to recall the witne;;es PWs 1 & 2 for further cross-exa mination

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor ro rresenting the respondent -State has submitted that the said witness )s were cross- examined at length before the Trial Court and that ar I rie opportunity WAS already provided to the petitioner and the cro: s-examination was closed on 17.0.1 .2024, whlle the present petition , ras filed in the year 2024 for recalling of witnesses PWs 1 & 2. He tr :refore prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. The matter pertains to a l;essions Case vide SC (POCSO) No.B2 of 2022, pending on t re file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-{i recial Court to try the offences under Protection of Children from S,r xual Offences Act, 2012, Siddipet, which suggests that the case ir; pending since 2022 and the statute prescribes the period of one yee r for disposal of the said case. However, it is observed from the recor that PWs 1 & 2 and none other than the victim and victim's mother r rere examined i \ 3 EfD,J c.t P.No.1393A 2025 and the defense counsel has also cross-examined the witnesses at Iength. Their cross-examination was closed on j7.01 .2024 and a petition under Section 311 cr.p.c. was filed io recall the witnesses. The matter is of sensitive in nature and the victim in a pOCSO case should not be called time and again to the court which would further traumatize the victim. ln case if the witnesses are recalled time and again, the very purpose of the statute is defeated. Since the witnesses are already cross-examined, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition observing the same.

6. Learned petitioner's counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in MADHAB CHANDRA ?RADHAN & ORS. Vs. STATE of OD|SHAI. The contention of the learned petitioner,s counsel is that ample opportunity should be given to the defense counsel for cross-examining the witnesses and that in this case, he has failed to put relevant questions to the witnesses due to oversight and thus, considering the said principle laid down in the above said decision, the application filed by the petitioner before the Triar court for further cross-examination of witnesses, may be allowed. The counsel relied upon the observation made at Para 5 in the said case which is as follows:- ' Speoal Leve Fedtion (Crt-)No.1OO82 ol2024 4 ETD,! crlP.tto 1t930 2025 "5. We have heard learned counsel for the who would submit that Section 33 (5) does no an absolute bar for recalling the child as a wit., examination. Learned counsel for the petittc r etitioners, tperate as :ss for re- ers would argue that Secflon 33 (5) would also not com( of the Special CourT's powers under Section n the way tl1 of the Cr.P.C to recall or re-examine any person who t as already been examined. lt would be apposite to reprod t 31 1 of the Cr.P.C before adveriing to the t. present case. Secllon 31 1 of the Cr.P.C reads a, >e Section >ts of the under: "311. Power to summon material witnt: examine person present. - Any Court rt any stage of any inquiry, trial or other procs under this Code, summon any person wlfness. or examine any person in atten: thottgh not summoned as a witness, or recz re-examine any person already examine) the Court shall summon and examine or and re-examine any such person if his ev;t appears to it to be essenfra/ to the just d,> s, or t.v, at >ding 1nce, 'l and 'ecall 'ence :ision of the case. . ." We are of the considered opinion that although iection 33 (5) would not act as an absolute bar to recall tl < victim for reexamination as a wlfness, each case must be looked at in the context of lfs individual facts and circ t nstances. Thus, the 6 cluestiait which falls fcr our considetz tion in the present case ls whether in the exercise of its pcv ers under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C, the Special Court ouglt to have l ) Ftry. ,,,. . 5 ETO,I recalled the child/victim for re_examination as witness, keeping in mind the mandate under Section 33 (S) ot the Act

7. On a thorough perusal of the said decision of the Apex Court, the Hon'ble Court at para 9 of the order observed as under:_ ,,9. From a perusal of the record of the case, it is abundan y clear that ample opportunities were given to the defense counsel to cross_examine the victim. When the victim has been examined and then cross_e,xamined at length twice already, mechanically allowing an application for recall of the victim, especialty in trial of offences under the POCSO Act would defeat the very purpose of the statute. Hence, we find no error or illegality in the impugned order of the High Couri or the order dated 10.10.2023 of the Speciat Court.,, B Therefore, in the right of the above said decision and in view of the above held discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to recall pws 1 & 2 tor further cross_ examination. Hence, the petition lacks merits and is liable to be d ismissed 9 ln the result, the Criminal petition is dismissed '10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, stand closed. pending if any, shall SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 I Addl._District and Sessions Judge-cum_Special Court to trv the Offences under protecrion of chitdren froniseiu;t-dffe;;;x;i,'idir2,'b"ia"o,i,p""ii-" _-# ;4-q.;F=t.5-{Et:.{=t '1

2. fhe 3. One 4. One 5. Two GE/PSL S-HO PS lr,4addur. Siddipet District. CC to SRt Y ASHOK RAJ AOvoCate CC to SRt ADDL pUBLtC PROSEC CD Copies loPUCl UTOR Advo,,i te [OpUC] I I HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 I \ ORDER CRLP.No.13930 of 2025 I t { ::::-\ ( ') i;" 0l [Et 2P5 t., ''-. "'.. t .) \:.-- ,,17 d DISMISSING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS \ \\\ )l: ?r