Telangana High Court
CRLRC/815/2025 of Sri. Voosa Venkata Narayana Vs The State of Telangana, on 11 November 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 815 OF 2025 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS aggrieved by the
[ 32s7 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 815 OF 2025
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS aggrieved by the order dated 0811012025 passed in Crl.MP.No.804 of 2025 in SC.SPL.No.295 of 2023 on the file of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar.
Between:
Sri. Voosa Venkata Narayana, S/o Late Mattaiah, Aged 86 years, Occ.Retd.
Employee, R/o H.No.'l-5-9, Road No.21. Maruthi Nagar, Kothapet, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Drstrict
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Telangana,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court building at Hyderabad Through PS Chaitanyapuri, L.B.Nagar Division, Rachakonda
2. Sri.Veeraiah, S/o not known Aged 38 years, Occ. Watchman, R/o Opposite to Mahila Bhavan, New Maruthinagar, Kothapet, Uppal Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. (ComplainanUFather of Victim)
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 438 (1) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further Proceedings in SC.SPL. No.295 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar including personal appearance of the petitioner/accused during the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Case in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C KUMAR
Counsel forthe RespondentNo.l: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISI ON CASE No.815 of i2025
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by he petrtioner aggrieved by the order dated Og.1O.2OZa passed in CRL.M.P.No.804 of 2025 in S.C.SpL.No 295 of 2OZi by the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy Distnct at L,B. Na3ar, (for short 'the learned trial court') whereby the apprication firec rnder Sectron 311 of Cr.P C, seeking recall of pW6 for further exrrnination. was dismissed 02 Heard Sri C.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitroner and Sri lVl Ramachandra Reddy, learned Adclitional public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State perused the reccrd 03 Learned counsel for the petitioner subrritted that the learned trial court ought to have recailed pw6 for the purpose of cross-examination but erroneously dismissed the petiii.n fired under Section 3'l 1 of Cr.P.C., which has caused serious p-ejudice to the petitioner-accused. lt is further submitted that pw6 is a Doctor who examined the victim and issued the Mentar Disabirity oerrtificate, and is therefore a material witness. Non-cross examination of such a crucial witness would result in grave prejudice to the defence of the petitioner-accused lt rs also contended that on the date of the chief- examination of PW6, the junior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought an adjournment on the ground that his Senior Counsel was held up at Nampally Criminal Courts, but the trial Court, without considering the said request, closed the cross- examination of PW6 as 'nil' Hence, it is prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine PW6
04. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor reported no objection for granting one more opportunity to the petitioner on imposing certain conditions
05. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case. and having regard to the fact that the valuable right of the petitioner to cross-examine a crucial witness rs at stake, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examining PW6, particularly when it was PW6 who left the Court before the Court hours. ln that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the \
learned trial Court is directed to recall PW6 for the ptrrpose of cross- examination and fix a specific date for the same. On such date, PW6 shall rema n present before the trial Court frorn 10 30 a m to 5 00 p m , and the learned counsel fcr the petitioner' ;hall conclude the cross-examination of PW6 on the same day with tut seeking any further adjournment 06 With the above observations, this Crirrrinal Revision Case is disposed of Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sh:ll stand closed. SD/- P GOWRI SHANKAR I)I:PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
t. The Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal c'f Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L B.Nagar.
2. One CC to SRl. C KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court al llyderabad (OUT)
4. Two CD CoPies G To, TPK/ABK I
HIGH COURT DATED: 1111112025
ORDER
CRLRC.No.81 5 ot 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISPOSED OF liiE S14 ./. /, t, .l li, , o 1 ? til\l ?fl25 \ \ \a