APHC010136852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2177/2026 Between:

1. S UNKARA SIVA SATYA REVANTH,ALIAS REVANTH,, S/O.

JAGADESWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. JCB OPERATOR, R/O. D. NO. 1-71, KONDAKARLA VILLAGE, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PARAWADA SUB-DIVISION REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI.

2. V ICTIM/PW1, RESPONDENT NO.2 CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 24.03.2026 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2026 IN CRL.P.NO.2177 OF 2026.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (for brevity the „BNSS‟) by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the order dated 06.03.2026 passed against him in Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2026 in S.C.No.29 of 2023 on the file of the learned special Judge for Trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Visakhapatnam.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned legal aid counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Court below is contrary to law and the weight of evidence on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside.The Court below erred in dismissing the petition filed for recalling PW1 for further cross-examination on important aspects relating to her age and educational qualification certificates.The dismissal was based on the ground that the child witness should not be repeatedly called as per the mandate under Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity „the POCSO Act‟). However, PW1 was not repeatedly examined, as she was examined in chief and cross-examined only once. The petitioner sought recall only for limited and essential clarification on crucial points. The learned Trial Court failed to consider this aspect. The Court below failed to appreciate that the recall petition was filed only after closure of PW1‟s evidence, and no such application had been filed earlier.The petitioner had bona fide reasons for seeking recall, and it is not always possible to set out every detail in the recall application. The Court below ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to further examine PW1 to elicit certain material and relevant facts necessary for proper adjudication of the case.

4. On the other hand, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, along with Ms.B. Alekhya, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that the order passed by the Court below is in accordance with law and the evidence on record, and does not warrant any interference. The learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed for recalling PW1, keeping in view the mandate under Section 33(5) of „the POCSOAct.,‟ which clearly intends to protect a child witness from being subjected to repeated examination and unnecessary harassment.

5. It is further submitted that PW1 has already been examined in chief and duly cross-examined by the petitioner, and sufficient opportunity was afforded at that stage. The present petition for recall is nothing but an attempt to fill up lacunae in the defence and to protract the proceedings. The reasons now sought to be urged, relating to age and educational certificates, were very much within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of earlier cross- examination, and no valid justification has been shown for recalling the witness. It is also contended that the petition for recall was filed only after closure of evidence, without any bona fide or