The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay of all further proceedings SC. POCSO. No.11 of 2022, Dt. 22-10- 2025 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Kamareddy pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Gounselfor the Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Gourt made the following: ORDER r -iffJi THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUI(ARAMJI Crl.R.C.No.a23 0F 20.25 ORDER:

1. This revision petition has been filed assailing the order d,ated, 22.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.49 of 2024 in S'C' POCSO No.11 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape & POCSO Act Cases, KamareddY.

2. The petitioner is the accused, who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(0(i)(n) of the IPC and Section s(iXiiXI) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,2Ol2.

3. Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rama Chandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The impugned petition was liled by complainant/prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to summon the Head Master of Zilla Parishad Girls High School, Kamareddy, along with the school records of the victim girl, including the bonalide certificate bearing Admission No.283' for the purpose of proving her age' The trial Court, upon 2 consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petition and summoned the witnesses. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution did not collect any material during investigation regarding the victim's age and no such reference appears in the charge sheet. He submits that at this advanced stage of the trial, the attempt to bring in new documents is impermissible. 5'2. He argues that the introd.uction of the bonafide certificate and summoning the Head Master at this stage amounts to filling up lacunae in the prosecution case, which, he contend.s, is impermissible in law. He further submits that an earlier application seeking to receive the bonafide certificate on record was allowed, despite the absence of any foundational material in the charge sheet; yet the trial court overlooked these aspects. He therefore seeks interference.

6. I have perused the material on record.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is facing charges under the Pocso Act, wherein the age of the victim is a material and determinative fact. It is also on record that the prosecufion earlier filed crl.M.P. No.112 of 2023 seeking to receive tJle \r-. tI t J bonafide certificate to establish the victim's age, and that petition was allowed in 2024. The said order was challenged before this Court in Crl.P. No.6066 of 2024 and the same was dismissed. Thus, the admissibility and relevance of the bonafide certificate in principle already stands upheld

8. Once a document is brought on record, its contents must be duly proved through competent evidence as required under the Indian Evidence Act. Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the trial Court to summon any witness "essential to the just decision of the case." The Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadau u. State of BiLwr (2013) 14 SCC 461 and P. Sanjeeua. Rao u. State of A.P., (2)l2l 7 SCC 56, has held that the power under Section 311is wide and can be invoked at any stage of the trial where the evidence sought to be produced is necessary for a just adjudication, provided that the prosecution is not permitted to fill deliberate gaps or lacunae. At the same time, the Supreme Court has also consistently emphasized that evidence vital to discovering the truth must not be shut out, particularly in serious crimes involving minors.

9. In cases under the POCSO Act, the age of the victim is a jurisdictional fact, and courts have repeatedly held that school :I 4 (^., records are relevant and admissible for proving age {Jarnait Singh u. stqte of Haryana, (2013) 7 scc 26g). Therefore, summoning the Head Master to prove the entries in the school record is not a mere attempt to fill lacunae but a step towards establishing a material fact central to the prosecution case. -

10. Further, the petitioner's contention that discrepancies between the charge sheet and the bonafide certificate would prejudice him is unfounded. Any inconsistencies or alleged falsities in the school records can effectively be brought out by the petitioner during cross-examination of the witness. The right to confront and challenge the evidence is fully protected. 1 1. The trial court, having considered these aspects, has exercised its discretion reasonably while allowing the petition under section 31 1 cr.P.c. This court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

12. In view of the above, there exists no tenable ground for interference with the impugned ord.er, much less for ad.mission of this revision petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to effectively cross-examine the summoned witnesses and place all disputed aspects on record during trial. ) J 5

13. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. I To //TRUE COPY/ Sd/- P. GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUW REGISTRAR C SECTION OFFICER /

1. The Special lqdgg, Fast Tract Special Court for Expeditious Tral and Disposal of Rape & POCSO Act cases at Kamareddy. 2. The Judical First Class Magistrate at Kamareddy. 3. The Station House Officer, Kamareddy Police Station, Kamareddy District. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies NVB/PR HIGH COURT DATED i1311112025 t () (i, \ 't { HE;qI . ',''.).. 0 B JAii 2rr2i '.. i;- ., '.. 'l,l ,: ORDER CRLRC.No.823 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE a. ,arl