Reddypet Swamy, Vs State of Telagana

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 823 bF 2025

¶7

Criminal Revision Case file under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS against the order dated 22.10.2025 in crl.M.P.No.49 of 2024in sc.Pocso.No.11 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trail and Disposal of Rape & POCSO Act Cases at Kamareddy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Reddypet Swamy, S/o. Kashaiah, Aged 26 years, Occ. Bestha, Occ. Labour, R/o. Machareddy (Village and Mandal) Presently at Kammarigalli, Kamareddy.

¶10

... Petitioner/Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telagana,, The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶13

xxxxxxxxxxx, Wo. xxxxxxxxxx, Aged 53 years, Occ. Supervisor, ICDS, Kamareddy, Rl/o. Bibipet Village and Mandal, Kamareddy District

¶14

...Respondents/Com plainant

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

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. 22-102025 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.

¶17

Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI PALLE SRIHARINATH

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

Gounselfor the Respondent No.2: None Appeared

¶20

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶21

r -iffJi

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTTCEN.TUI(ARAMJI}

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.a23 0F^20.25

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner is the^{accused,who is facing trial for the} offences punishable under^{Section376(2)(0(i)(n)of the IPC and} Section s(iXiiXI) read with^{Section6 of the Protection of Children} from Sexual Offences^{(POCSO)Act,2Ol2.}

¶27

Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath,^{learned counselfor the} petitioner, and Mr. Rama Chandra^{Reddy, learned Additional} Public Prosecutor appearing^{for respondent No.1.}

¶28

the 4. The impugned^{petition was liled by}

¶29

complainant/prosecution under^{Section 311 Cr.P.C.,seeking to} summon the Head Master of^{Zilla Parishad Girls HighSchool,} Kamareddy, along with the^{schoolrecords of the victim girl,} including the bonalide certificate^{bearingAdmission No.283' for} the purpose of proving her^{age' The trialCourt, upon}

¶30

tr

¶31

2

¶32

consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petition and summoned the witnesses. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

I have perused the material on record.

¶36

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-.

¶37

It t

¶38

J

¶39

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

¶40

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. empowersthe 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, particularlyⁱⁿ serious crimes involving minors.

¶41

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.^-

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

) J

¶50

5

¶51