[ 33031 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9286 OF 2026 Between: Jalli Shiva Kumar, S/o Jalli Raju, aged 23 years, Occ. Student, R/o H.N0.23-1-29t1, fhyagaraya Colony, Backside Miraj Cinemas, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.1 AND 1. The State of State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. Xxxxx xxx xxx, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx ...RESPONDENT/ Defacto - COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased toto set aside the order dated 28-02-2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1410 of 2O25 in SC SPL No.292 of 2023 on the file of Fast Track special Judge For Trial And Disposal of Rape And Pocso Act cases, Ranga Reddy Distirct At L.B.Nagar and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC SPL No.292 of 2023 on the file of Fast Track special Judge For Trial And Disposal Of Rape And Pocso Act Cases, Ranga Reddy Distirct At L.B.Nagarand to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kothacheruvu Ramesh Babu , Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABN) THE HONOURABLE SRr JUSTICE J. SREENJVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9286 of 2o26 DATE: L3.O7.2O26 Between: Jalli Shiva Kumar. Petitioner/ Accused No. 1 AND The State of Telangana and another ...Respondents :ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.l aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape alrd POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crl.M.P.No.1410 of 2025 in S.C.Sp1. No.292 of 2023, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to recall PWs. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination. 2. Learned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the order dated 23.06.2026, the concerned Investigating Ofircer served the notice to LW.1/complainant, who is none other than the father of the victim/LW.2, oo 07.O7.2026. ln spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter 2 appezrrance. Flence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, 3. Heard Mr.K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learr-red Additional public Prosecutor for respondenl No. 1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is accused No.1 in S.C.Spl.No.292 of 2023, for the offences under Sections 354-D and 506 rlur 34 of the indian penal Code, 1860 (for short 'rhc IPC') and Secrion l1 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2Ol2 (for short the POCSO Act). The petitioner could not cross-examine pWs.1 and 2 on 14.11.2025 on the ground that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitloner and accused No.3 is not attended the Court. Though the petitioner and accused No.3 requested the trial Court to granl adjournment on 14.11.2025, the trial Court directed them to proceed with the cross-r'xamination of PWs.1 and 2 and recorded that the petitioner and accused No.3 cross-examined pWs.1 and 2 though the petitioner has not cross examined. The cross-examination of PWs. I and 2 is very much essential to prove the innocence of the petitioner. Unless PWs.1 and 2 are recallecl for further cross-cxamination, the petitroner will be put to great hardship. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner fi1ed Crl.M.P.No.1410 of 2025 before the learned trial Court to protract the litigation on one way or the other. As per the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the Hence,victim cannot be called repeatedly to testify in the Court. PWs. 1 and 2 forthe petitioner is not entitled to seek recalling of further cross-examination.

the6. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusai of the material available on record, it reveals that on 14.11.2025 PWs. 1 and 2 were examined in chief and they were cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused No.2 and on the said date, the petitioner and accused No 3 specifically requested the learned trial Court seeking adjournment on the ground that their counsel is not responding to their phone calls. At that juncture, the learned trial Court has directed the petitioner and accused No.3 to proceed with the cross-examination' Accordingly, the trial Court recorded in the deposition of PWs' 1 and 2 as if the petitioner and accused No.3 had cross-examined them' 7. It is very much relevant to extract the cross-examination of PW.1 by the petitioner and accused No.3, which reads as follows: 4 "Cross-examlnation by counsel for Accused No.l and 3: A I and A3 present and represented that their counsel is not responding to their ca1ls. Today victim present as such A 1 ald 43 directed to cross examine the witness. Chief examination of the victim explained to them through thc help of Special pp as they were standing behind the curtain. Cross examination by Al and Ag (party ln person): It ls not true to suggest that A 1 and A3 (themselves) did not commit any offense against me ald they never folloq ed ald threatened me as stated by me in my evidence."

8. The record further reveals lhat on Ig.11.2025, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner filed Crl.M.p.No. 1410 of 2025 under Sectio:r 31 1 of the Cr.p.C. to recall pWs.l and 2. The learned trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that as per the provisions ol secrion 33(5) of the pOCSO Act, the victim shall not be recalled repeatedly to the Court. The said reason given by thc lcarnecl trial Court ts not in dispute. Whereas rn the case on hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and accused No.3 belore the trial C)ourt has not attended on 14.1 1.2025 and in the petition, Iearnecl counsel for the petitioner specifically mentioncd the reason r-hat due to ill_health, he could not attend the Court. In such circuntstances the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner by imposing any condition or close 5 the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, on the other hand, directed the petitioner to proceed with the cross-examination.

9 . It is relevant to mention that in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and othersl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is very wide and is intended to enable the Court to arrive at the truth and render a just decision. The Court observed that a witness may be recalled at any stage of the trial if such recali is essential for the just decision of the case and when the party seeking recall did not have an earlier opportunity to ehcit relevant facts. It was further held that recall should not be refused on technical grounds when such examination would assist the Court in proper adjudication of the matter and when no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party, who would still have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the orders of the courts below and allowed the recall of the witness under Section 31 1 Cr.P.C. for further examination. 10. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner is facing trial for the heinous offences and PWs. 1 and 2 were not cross-examined on 14.1 1.2025 due to non-availability of his counsel. It is trite law I Criminal Appeal No.2634 of 2023 dated 29.O8.2023 6 tha t due lo the mistake on the part of the counse l, the party could not be suffered

1 1. Taking into consideration the peculiLr facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh (supral, this Court is of the considered vier'". thar, the petitioner is entitled to give an opportunity for cross-cxamination of PWs. 1 and 2, and the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.141O of 2O2S in S.C. Spl. No.292 ol 2023 bv thc Iearned trial Court is lable to be set aside and accordinglS set a side. 12. In the rcsult, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to condition that rhe peLitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,0OO/-(Rupees five thousand oniv) each to PWs. t and 2 and to conclude the cross-cxamination of PWs. I and 2 on the specified date as fixed by lhc learned trial Court. In default, the learned trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with 1aw. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/- A. JAYASREE ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 'lo, SECTION OFFICER Fast l The rrack Speciar Judge for Rape and pocso Act Triar And- Disposar- "'" of Cases, RangaReddy District. At L e.Nagar 2. The Station House Officer, police Station, Saroornagar, Rachakonda 3. One CC to Sri. Kothacheruvu Ramesh Babu, Advocate tOpUCl t Prosecutor Hish court for the state of reransana, at lff",.:n i[,lr!b"" "M 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 1310712026 1 HE Sr4r€ ( ), Q :) r) 2026 I o I 7 JUt ,,1/ a+ORDER t -'- "'-'CRLP.No.9286 of 2026 - -s;52*'

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED ,')' ,l I\$/^ --/ I lb v 1)i

[ 33031 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9286 OF 2026 Between: Jalli Shiva Kumar, S/o Jalli Raju, aged 23 years, Occ. Student, R/o H.N0.23-1-29t1, fhyagaraya Colony, Backside Miraj Cinemas, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERYACCUSED No.1 AND 1. The State of State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. Xxxxx xxx xxx, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx ...RESPONDENT/ Defacto - COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased toto set aside the order dated 28-02-2026 in Crl.M.P.No.1410 of 2O25 in SC SPL No.292 of 2023 on the file of Fast Track special Judge For Trial And Disposal of Rape And Pocso Act cases, Ranga Reddy Distirct At L.B.Nagar and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC SPL No.292 of 2023 on the file of Fast Track special Judge For Trial And Disposal Of Rape And Pocso Act Cases, Ranga Reddy Distirct At L.B.Nagarand to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kothacheruvu Ramesh Babu , Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABN) THE HONOURABLE SRr JUSTICE J. SREENJVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9286 of 2o26 DATE: L3.O7.2O26 Between: Jalli Shiva Kumar. Petitioner/ Accused No. 1 AND The State of Telangana and another ...Respondents :ORDER:

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.l aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape alrd POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Crl.M.P.No.1410 of 2025 in S.C.Sp1. No.292 of 2023, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to recall PWs. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination. 2. Learned Additional Pubtic Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the order dated 23.06.2026, the concerned Investigating Ofircer served the notice to LW.1/complainant, who is none other than the father of the victim/LW.2, oo 07.O7.2026. ln spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter 2 appezrrance. Flence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, 3. Heard Mr.K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learr-red Additional public Prosecutor for respondenl No. 1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is accused No.1 in S.C.Spl.No.292 of 2023, for the offences under Sections 354-D and 506 rlur 34 of the indian penal Code, 1860 (for short 'rhc IPC') and Secrion l1 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2Ol2 (for short the POCSO Act). The petitioner could not cross-examine pWs.1 and 2 on 14.11.2025 on the ground that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitloner and accused No.3 is not attended the Court. Though the petitioner and accused No.3 requested the trial Court to granl adjournment on 14.11.2025, the trial Court directed them to proceed with the cross-r'xamination of PWs.1 and 2 and recorded that the petitioner and accused No.3 cross-examined pWs.1 and 2 though the petitioner has not cross examined. The cross-examination of PWs. I and 2 is very much essential to prove the innocence of the petitioner. Unless PWs.1 and 2 are recallecl for further cross-cxamination, the petitroner will be put to great hardship. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner fi1ed Crl.M.P.No.1410 of 2025 before the learned trial Court to protract the litigation on one way or the other. As per the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the Hence,victim cannot be called repeatedly to testify in the Court. PWs. 1 and 2 forthe petitioner is not entitled to seek recalling of further cross-examination.

the6. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusai of the material available on record, it reveals that on 14.11.2025 PWs. 1 and 2 were examined in chief and they were cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused No.2 and on the said date, the petitioner and accused No 3 specifically requested the learned trial Court seeking adjournment on the ground that their counsel is not responding to their phone calls. At that juncture, the learned trial Court has directed the petitioner and accused No.3 to proceed with the cross-examination' Accordingly, the trial Court recorded in the deposition of PWs' 1 and 2 as if the petitioner and accused No.3 had cross-examined them' 7. It is very much relevant to extract the cross-examination of PW.1 by the petitioner and accused No.3, which reads as follows: 4 "Cross-examlnation by counsel for Accused No.l and 3: A I and A3 present and represented that their counsel is not responding to their ca1ls. Today victim present as such A 1 ald 43 directed to cross examine the witness. Chief examination of the victim explained to them through thc help of Special pp as they were standing behind the curtain. Cross examination by Al and Ag (party ln person): It ls not true to suggest that A 1 and A3 (themselves) did not commit any offense against me ald they never folloq ed ald threatened me as stated by me in my evidence."

8. The record further reveals lhat on Ig.11.2025, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner filed Crl.M.p.No. 1410 of 2025 under Sectio:r 31 1 of the Cr.p.C. to recall pWs.l and 2. The learned trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that as per the provisions ol secrion 33(5) of the pOCSO Act, the victim shall not be recalled repeatedly to the Court. The said reason given by thc lcarnecl trial Court ts not in dispute. Whereas rn the case on hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and accused No.3 belore the trial C)ourt has not attended on 14.1 1.2025 and in the petition, Iearnecl counsel for the petitioner specifically mentioncd the reason r-hat due to ill_health, he could not attend the Court. In such circuntstances the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner by imposing any condition or close 5 the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, on the other hand, directed the petitioner to proceed with the cross-examination.

9 . It is relevant to mention that in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and othersl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is very wide and is intended to enable the Court to arrive at the truth and render a just decision. The Court observed that a witness may be recalled at any stage of the trial if such recali is essential for the just decision of the case and when the party seeking recall did not have an earlier opportunity to ehcit relevant facts. It was further held that recall should not be refused on technical grounds when such examination would assist the Court in proper adjudication of the matter and when no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party, who would still have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the orders of the courts below and allowed the recall of the witness under Section 31 1 Cr.P.C. for further examination. 10. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner is facing trial for the heinous offences and PWs. 1 and 2 were not cross-examined on 14.1 1.2025 due to non-availability of his counsel. It is trite law I Criminal Appeal No.2634 of 2023 dated 29.O8.2023 6 tha t due lo the mistake on the part of the counse l, the party could not be suffered

1 1. Taking into consideration the peculiLr facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh (supral, this Court is of the considered vier'". thar, the petitioner is entitled to give an opportunity for cross-cxamination of PWs. 1 and 2, and the impugned order dated 28.02.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.141O of 2O2S in S.C. Spl. No.292 ol 2023 bv thc Iearned trial Court is lable to be set aside and accordinglS set a side. 12. In the rcsult, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to condition that rhe peLitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,0OO/-(Rupees five thousand oniv) each to PWs. t and 2 and to conclude the cross-cxamination of PWs. I and 2 on the specified date as fixed by lhc learned trial Court. In default, the learned trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with 1aw. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/- A. JAYASREE ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 'lo, SECTION OFFICER Fast l The rrack Speciar Judge for Rape and pocso Act Triar And- Disposar- "'" of Cases, RangaReddy District. At L e.Nagar 2. The Station House Officer, police Station, Saroornagar, Rachakonda 3. One CC to Sri. Kothacheruvu Ramesh Babu, Advocate tOpUCl t Prosecutor Hish court for the state of reransana, at lff",.:n i[,lr!b"" "M 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 1310712026 1 HE Sr4r€ ( ), Q :) r) 2026 I o I 7 JUt ,,1/ a+ORDER t -'- "'-'CRLP.No.9286 of 2026 - -s;52*'

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED ,')' ,l I\$/^ --/ I lb v 1)i