THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Crl.R.C.No.823 OF 2025

ORDER:

1. This revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.49 of 2024 in S.C. POCSO No.11 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape &

POCSO Act Cases, Kamareddy.

2. The petitioner is the accused, who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(i)(n) of the IPC and Section 5(j)(ii)(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

3. Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rama Chandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The impugned petition was filed by the complainant/prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C., seeking to summon the Head Master of Zilla Parishad Girls High School, Kamareddy, along with the school records of the victim girl, including the bonafide certificate bearing Admission No.283, for the purpose of proving her age. The trial Court, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petition and summoned the witnesses. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.

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.

5.2. He argues that the introduction of the bonafide certificate and summoning the Head Master at this stage amounts to filling up lacunae in the prosecution case, which, he contends, 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.

6. I have perused the material on record.

7. 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 prosecution earlier filed Crl.M.P. No.112 of 2023 seeking to receive the 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.

8. 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. empowers the trial Court to summon any witness “essential to the just decision of the case.” The Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461 and P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P., (2012) 7 SCC 56, has held that the power under Section 311 is 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, particularly in serious crimes involving minors.

9. In cases under the POCSO Act, the age of the victim is a jurisdictional fact, and courts have repeatedly held that school records are relevant and admissible for proving age (Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263). 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.

10. Further, the petitioner’s contention that discrepancies between the charge sheet and the bonafide certificate would prejudice h