THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8500 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) to set aside the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.08 of 2025 in S.S.C. No.116 of 2018 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal District at Hanumakonda.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.329 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, r/w.34 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

3. I have heard Mr.V.Venkatram Narsaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

4. During the trial stage, the petitioners filed a recall petition seeking to summon P.W.4 and P.W.15 for cross-examination. The basis of the petition was that their counsel was unable to attend court on the relevant dates, resulting in the absence of cross-examination of these witnesses. By order dated 20.01.2025, the trial court partially allowed the petition. It permitted the recall of P.W.15 but declined the request concerning P.W.4. The trial court noted that the examination-in-chief of P.W.4 had been conducted on 13.12.2024, on which date both the petitioners and their counsel were absent. Consequently, the cross-examination of P.W.4 was recorded as ‘Nil’. The court further observed that despite a lapse of approximately 11 months and the examination of several other witnesses in the interim, the petitioners failed to take any steps to seek the recall of P.W.4.

5. Counsel for the petitioners contended that P.W.4 was an eyewitness, and his cross-examination is critical to safeguarding the interests of the petitioners. It was also submitted that the absence of counsel on the day of P.W.4’s examination was neither deliberate nor intentional. On these grounds, it was argued that the trial court's decision to allow the recall of P.W.15, while simultaneously denying recall of P.W.4 under the same circumstances, results in manifest prejudice to the petitioners’ right to a fair trial.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court rightly considered the petitioners’ inaction over the span of 11 months in refusing the recall of P.W.4. Nevertheless, the Prosecutor also indicated that the petitioners' plea may be examined on its own merits.

7. I have perused the material on record.

8. P.W.4 was examined on 13.12.2024, and it is admitted that counsel for the petitioners was absent on that date. The explanation offered by the petitioners for their counsel’s absence has been found to be convincing.

However, the mere failure to take steps within a reasonable time should not be construed in a manner that frustrates the cause of substantial justice, particularly when the matter is being considered on its merits.

9. Given that the trial court accepted the same explanation while permitting the recall of P.W.15, it ought to have extended a similar opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine P.W.4. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the absence of counsel on the day of P.W.4’s examination does not appear to be deliberate or part of any strategy, and the petitioners were not afforded a fair opportunity to conduct the cross-

examination.

10. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, P.W.4 shall be recalled for the purpose of cross-examination. The trial court is directed to fix an appropriate schedule for such cross-examination and ensure that the examination proceeds expeditiously in accordance with law.

11. With the above direction, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Date: 10.07.2025 CHS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8500 OF 2025 Date: 10.07.2025 CHS