ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner-accused seeking to set aside the order dated 27.02.2026passed in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2026 in P.SC.No.11 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases at Kamareddy (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Mr. P. Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent–State.

3. The respondent-State filed an application under Section 311 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court seeking to summon Dr. G. Pandu, Assistant Director (DNA), Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, as a prosecution witness and to record his evidence and during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected blood samples from the victim girl, her minor female child, and the accused, and a DNA test was conducted. A report was issued by the State FSL through the proposed witness; however, he was not cited as a witness in the charge sheet and that examination of the said witness is necessary to prove the contents of the DNA report. Accused filed a counter opposing the petition on the ground that the prosecution had earlier filed Crl.M.P. No.49 of 2024 to summon the Head Master of ZPHS (Girls), Kamareddy, along with the educational records of G. Bhavani, and the same was allowed and the witness was examined as PW-12 to fill up lacunae in the prosecution case and that the present petition is also an attempt to fill up lacunae, which is impermissible. He further contended that the Investigating Officer has already been examined as PW-13 and evidence regarding the DNA report has been brought on record, hence, summoning the proposed witness is unnecessary.The trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the petition observing that the DNA report issued by the proposed witness was already filed along with the charge sheet and a copy of the same was furnished to the accused. Therefore, no new case is being introduced and further observed that the accused would have full opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision Case is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the said witness was not cited in the charge sheet, he cannot now be examined, and the evidence regarding the DNA report has already been marked through PW-13 and that summoning the witness would only result in repetition of evidence and cause prejudice to the petitioner and prayed the Court to set aside the order dated 27.02.2026 by allowing this Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and the examination of the expert who issued the DNA report would aid in arriving at the truth and would also provide an opportunity to the accused to effectively cross-examine the witness. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the Revision case.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petition was filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the expert who issued the DNA report, though he was not cited as a witness in the charge sheet. It is well settled that Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide discretion upon the Court to summon any witness at any stage of the trial if his evidence appears to be essential for a just decision of the case.In the present case, the DNA report forms part of the charge sheet and has already been furnished to the accused. The examination of the expert who issued the report cannot be said to introduce a new case. Moreover, the accused will have full opportunity to cross- examine the said witness. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the or