The High Court · 2025

The State represented by S.H.O, PS Thonur rep by its Public Prosecutor Telangana, High Court of Telangana ...PETITIONERSTACCUSED No. 1 to 7 ...RESPONDENTS IA NO 1olF 2 Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay a[ further proceedings against the petitioner,s/Al to A7 in SC(POCSO) No. 200 0f 202'r on the file of the Fast rrack speciar sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposar of cases of rape and protection of children from sexual offences (pOCSO) Act, 2012_Cum principal Sessions Judge, At Mahabubabad. pending disposal of the Criminal petition. c IN S ON ENO 8310F criminar Revision case fired under section 43g and 442 0f BNSS against the order Dated. 17.1o.202s passed in crr.M.p. No. g2 ot 2024 in s'c(POCSO)No. 200 0f 2021 0n the fire of the Fast rrack speciar sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of cases of Rape and protection of children from Sexual Offences (pOCSO) Act, 2012_Cum principal Sessions Judge, At Mahabubabad. Between: Somarapukunta, Thanda,Thorrrir. Somarapukunta, fhanda, I honur. Somarapukunta, Thanda, t norrur. ' 3:ff.ti"r,illjli,",t#""Y::+ina'Ased 20 vears' occ' private job, R/o 2. Banoth sunil. S/o. lleJana,AOed 27 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. 3. Banoth Veerana. S/o €alu, Aged 4g years, Occ. Agriculture R:/o. 4. Banoth Maru. Wo V-eerana, Aged 43 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. 5. Banoth Kishan, S/o ?T[:1"., Aged 52 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. somarapukunta, Thanda,Thorrur.' t 33[?ti"rl?[i[Ifi"H:#5,iil ' Ased 50 Years, occ. Agricurture R/o. ' 33[:'i"rIIfl:[:1"+#A ff]?l; Ased 32 Years, occ. private Job, R/o. ...PETIT|ONERSTACCUSED No. I to 7 AND *e.?t:l'"',:,!',it?1,'i1i+rt;iL3' PS rhorrur Rep bv its pubric prosecutor, ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: I OF 2025 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the petitioners/Al to A7 in sc(Pocso) No' 200 of 2021 on the file of the Fast rrack speciar Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of cases of rape and protection of children from sexuar offences (pocso) Act, 2012-Cum principar sessions .luoge, Rt Mahabubabad' pending disposar of the criminar petition. counser for the petitioners: sri r. srujan Kumar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: public prosecutor The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER / THE IIOf,OI'RAALE SRI JUSrICE N.TUKARAU.,I If CASE lllos.830 AND 831 ()F 5 oRDER: These Criminal Revision Cases are filed under Sections 43g and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sumksln Sanhi*n,2o23 fBNSS,) by the petitioners, assailing the common orders dated, lZ.1O.2O2S passed in Crl.M.p. Nos. 81 and.82 of 2O24 in SC (POCSO) No. 2OO of 2O2l on the file of the learned Fast Track Special Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO Act, 20 l2)_cum_principal Sessions Judge, Mahaboobabad.

2. As the issues raised in both revision petitions are interconnected and arise from the same factual matrix, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3.1. In Crl.M.p. No. 82 of 2024, the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 7 sought issuance of summons to the Head Masters/priricipals of (i) Education Technologr School, Thorrur; (ii) SLS Scholars School, suryapet; (iii) psR High school, Thormr; and (M the panchayat Secretar5r of Somarapukunta Thanda, Thormr Mandal, for production of the school records pertaining to the date of birth of .. PW. 2

3.2. In Cr1.M.P. No. 81 of 2024, the petitioners prayed for sending Ex. P-4 (the extract from tJ'e admission register) to the handwriting expert at TGFSL, Hyderabad, alleging that the year of birth of PW.2 had been altered from '2OO2'to 2OO3.'

4.I. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these applications were frled at the stage of defence evidence. The prosecution has primarily relied on the Second.ar5r School Certificate (SSC certihcate) to establish the age of PW.2. The trial Court rejected the applications by invoking Section 94 of the Juuenile Justice (Care and Protection of Childrcn) Act, 2075, which accords precedence to the SSC certificate for the purpose of determining age. The petitioners contend, however, that a bona fide dispute exists because records from the earlier schools allegedly attended by PW.2 indicate a different date of birth,

25.O7.2OO2, contradicting the prosecution's version. Although PW.2 denied any such discrepancy during cross-examination, the certificates obtained by the petitioners from those schools prima facie show variations in her date of birth.

4.2. tt is contended that age determination constitutes a foundational jurisdictional fact in proceedings under the POCSO Act, since the appticability of the statute hinges entirely upon me- minority of the victim. Any denial of opportunity to the accused to \ adduce material evidence on such a pivotal issue, particularly at the defence stage, causes severe and irremediable prejudice. Therefore, tJre petitioners argue that the trial Court ought to have exercised its discretion in favour of allowing the requested evidence. l,earned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the

5. prosecution has already produced the Secondary School Certificate, which, under Section 94121(rl of the JJ Act, 2O15, is a statutorily recognised basis for age determination. Nevertheless, he fairly submits that if a legitirnate dispute is raised, an opportunity may be afforded to the defence, leaving the ultimate determination to the trial Court.

6. The record has been perused and the submissions of botl sides duly considered.

7. The petitioners seek two forms of relief: (i) summoning of the Head Masters/Principals of the schools previously attended by PW.2, and (ii) referring Ex. P-4 to the Forensic Science Laboratory for an expert opinion on the alleged interpolation.

8. Regarding the first request, tlre petitioners have placed prima facie material indicating a possible divergence between the date of birth recorded in earlier school registers and the Secondary School {' Certificate relied upon by the prosecution. PW.2 has admitted to having studied in the said institutions. The right of an accused to present defence evidence is an indispensable facet of the guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Courts have repeatedly recognised that even at an advanced stage of trial, additional evidence may be permitted if it aids in discovering the truth or prevents miscarriage of justice. [n cases under the POCSO Act, as age determination is of decisive importance, even minor discrepancies assume signifrcance because the minority of the victim is the very jurisdictional trigger for prosecution under the Act. Thus, where conflicting documentary evidence exists, the Court is duty-bound to permit the defence to test the veracity and authenticity of such records. The trial Court's refusal to summon witnesses who may clariff these discrepancies falls short of the standard required for ensuring a fair trial.

9. The legal position on age determination has been authoritatively setfled by the Supreme Court. in Jarnail Stngh u. State of Haryana, (2OL3l 7 SCC 263, wherein the Court held that the procedure prescribed under the JJ Act for determining the age of a child in conflict with law appli es pai p*Y to child victims as well. The JJ Act prescribes a hierarchy of documents for age determination, giving primacy to the Secondary School Certificate. However, Jam.ail Singh recognises that where doubt arises or contradictory evidence exists, courts must conduct a careful t' l inquiry.

10. In the present case, tJre alleged discrepancy of one year is not inconsequential it goes to the root of the prosecution's case under the POCSO Act. In such circumstances, permitting the petitioners to summon relevant witnesses is not merely appropriate but necessaqr to satisS the constitutional mandate of ensuring fairness and preventing miscarriage of justice. \ I

11. For these reasons, the order dated 17. 10.2025 in Crl.M.p. No. 82 of 2024 is set aside. The trial Court shall summon and I I examine tJle witnesses proposed by the petitioners at the earliest, adhering to a strict schedule, and both sides shall extend full cooperation to avoid unnecessary delay.

12. With respect to the second request, referring Ex. p-4 to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the petitioners argue that the alteration in tJ:e entry is visible to the naked eye. However, Ex. p-4 presently aligns with the entries in the Secondary School Certificate, which stands unrebutted at this stage. Until the petitioners produce contrary primary evidence by examining the authorities of the earlier schools, the necessit5z of FSL examination does not arise. Shou1d the primar5r evidence adduced by the defence disclose substantive discrepancies, the trial Court may thereafter reconsider, in its discretion, whether expert opinion is warranted. Hence, the trial court's order in crl.M.P. No. 81 of 2o24declining FSL referral calls for no interference.

13. In the result, crl.R.c. No. 830 0f 2025 is dismrlssed, while Crt.R.C. No. 831 of 2025 is alloued in the terms indicated above. All pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. I ,ffRUE COPY" SD/. V.KAVITHA REG OFFICER To, 1 ffij:'J.'i?:|.":,?"""''3]B?',':;"J1.,,J,.ifl'BJit5-Ei:'l':S &'3833)"i"?"%'l31 iifii piiilii'par Seiiions J udse, At Mahab ubabad'

2.ThelstAdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudgeatWarangal 3. The Station Houseofficer, Thorrur Police station, Mahabubabad District 4.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. IOUTI

5. One CC to SriT. Sruian Kumar Reddy' Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies VH/PSLP HIGH COURT DATED: 1411112025 I COMMON ORDER CRLRC.No.83O and 83{ of 2025 J og-f Hc 51.1I e s 16 lic Ut o(' o ). 0r- i: Sn, r .a*' :/' DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C No. 830 ot 2025 AND ALLOWNG THE CRL.R.C.No. 831 ot 2025 \\