Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1934
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
E. V. VENUGOPAL, J
Vanaparthy Sinivas Srinu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLRC/658/2023
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of discharge petitions, emphasizing the necessity of allowing evidence to be presented in cases of alleged sexual harassment against minors.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 354, 354-D - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 12 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 227 - Revision petitions filed to set aside dismissal of discharge petitions in cases of alleged sexual harassment against minor students - The petitioner, an English teacher, was accused of misbehaving with students, leading to multiple FIRs - The trial court dismissed discharge petitions, finding prima facie evidence against the petitioner based on victim statements - The court emphasized that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence but can be used for corroboration - The court found no irregularity in the trial court's decision to proceed with the case. (Paras 5, 12, 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Discharge of Accused - The court ruled that discharging the accused at the threshold without allowing evidence to be presented would result in a miscarriage of justice. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an English teacher, was accused of inappropriate behavior towards minor students, leading to multiple FIRs. The trial court dismissed discharge petitions, finding prima facie evidence based on victim statements.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's dismissal of discharge petitions was upheld, with the court directing the trial to proceed without influence from prior observations.
Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court erred in dismissing the discharge petitions and the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and that the evidence presented warranted continuation of the trial.
Result: All criminal revision cases are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusations against teacher (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. defense counsel's arguments (Para 8) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. substantive evidence (Para 11) |
| 5. prima facie case (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. dismissal of revision cases (Para 14 , 15) |
COMMON ORDER:
1 Since the petitioner in all the revision cases is one and the same and since the point involved in all the cases is also one and the same, all these criminal revision cases are being disposed of by this common order.
2 Crl.R.C.No.658 of 2023 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 25.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.605 of 2023 in S.C.No.775 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to discharge the petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.
3 Crl.R.C.No.659 of 2023 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 25.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.604 of 2023 in S.C.No.772 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to discharge the petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of S.C/S.T (PoA) Amendment Act; and
4 Crl.R.C.No.660 of 2023 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 25.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.606 of 2023 in S.C.No.776 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to discharge the petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354-D of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of S.C/S.T (PoA) Amendment Act.
5 The facts leading to filing of the above criminal revision cases are that the de facto complainants lodged reports before the police Maheswaram that the petitioner who has been working as English teacher in ZP HS school of Maheswaram was misbehaving with the 7th class girl students by touching their waists and even talking with them in vulgar language. Basing on the above complaints, three cases were registered against the petitioner for the offences stated supra.
6 It is to be noted from the back ground of the cases that during the course of investigation the prosecution besides recording the statements of the victims and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C, also got recorded the statements of the victim girls under Section 164 Cr.P.C. through the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Maheswaram.
7 While the above cases were pending and at the time of framing of charges, the petitioner filed the above criminal petitions under section 227 Cr.P.C. in all the cases seeking to discharge from the prosecution. The learned trial Judge by order dated 25.09.2023 dismissed all the petitions separately. Hence these revision cases.
8 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in all the criminal revision cases is that the petitioner never committed the alleged offence and he never harassed the girls in any manner, he never misbehaved with the students at any point of time. By relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in State vs. Anil, [2019 SCC OnLine Del 10995] the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victims were examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein they have not attributed anything adversely to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the apex Court in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra , [(2002) 2 SCC 135] , Yogesh @ Sachin Jagadish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra , [(2008) 10 SCC 394] , State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh and Prafulla Kumar Samal, [1979 Crl.L.J. 154] and Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya satardekar, [AIR 2009 SC 1013]
9 In a criminal trial, the duty of the prosecution is to produce evidences before the Court for proving the fact relating to the guilt of the accused. Th
