THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.797 of 2025

ORDER

Challenging the order, dated 16.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1040 of 2025 in S.C.Spl.No.567 of 2021 by the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PWs.1 to 6 for further cross examination was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. Mekala Durgaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Case of the petitioner is that S.C. Spl. No.567 of 2021 was filed against him for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n)(i), 342, 493 and 506 of IPC, Section 5(1)(i) r/w. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Since the learned counsel who earlier represented the petitioner in the trial Court had inadvertently failed to put certain material questions during the cross examination of PWs.1 to 6, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall the said witnesses for further cross examination. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. It is his further case that the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is crucial for proper adjudication of the matter, and the mistake made by the previous counsel cannot prejudice the rights of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 311 of Cr.P.C., Court may at any stage of proceedings can re-summon any person, if his evidence appears to be essential for just decision in the case. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and the same cannot be interfered with and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PWs.1 to 6 for further cross examination holding that the defence counsel had already cross examined PWs.1 to 5 at length on all material aspects relevant to the case, and PW6 had turned hostile to the prosecution case. It was further noted that the petitioner had not specified the alleged important points that were purportedly omitted during the cross examination of the witnesses.

7. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application and there is no infirmity, illegality, or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 06.11.2025 rev