Gunja Venkanna v. The State Of Telangana
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURTFORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRry FIRST DAY OF DECEMEER TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT TIIE HONOURABLE SMTJUSTTCE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISroN NO:1012 OF 2025 Criminal Revision filed under Section 3971401 of Cr.PC to set aside the order Dt. 10-12-2025 passed in Crl M.P. No. '1257 ot 2025, in SC SPL No. 11212024 on the file of the Court of the Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and disposal or Rape and Pocso Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar and thereby allowing the petition for recalling of witness PW-1 for further cross examination, and pass such other order or orders, the Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice.
Between:
Gunja Venkanna, S/o Balraj Aged about 22 years, Occ. Labour Work, Ft/o Flat No. 614, Double Bedroom Flats, Yerukala Nandharamma Colony, L. B. Nagar, R. R. District.
... PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Lng Sqte of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for Telangana State, Hyderabad.
,.RESPONDE NT/RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to stay all further proceedings in S.C. SPL No. 11212024 on the file of the Hon'ble Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, during pending final disposal of main Crl RC and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.. Counsel for the Petitione(s):Mr. S.Vijaya Prashanth Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER:
!NTHE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD E HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEV!
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.l 12ot 2025 3I DECEMBER 2025 Between:
Gunja Verrkanna ... Petitioner AND The State cf Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ..; Respondent :ORDER:
Challenging the order, dated 10J2.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No 1257 of 2O25 in S.C.Spl.No.112 of 2024 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 rrs 'trial Court'), this Criminal Revision Case is filed. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 31'l of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PW1 for further crossexamination was dismissed. 2.
Heard Mr. S.Vijay Prashanth, 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.N o.112 of 2024 was filed against him for the offences under Sections 354-A of tPC, 11(ii) r/w. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. During the crossexamination, since PW1 was not confronted with certain important suggestions and omissions in her evidence, the petitionei filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recalf the said witness for further cross examination. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. lt is his further case that the evidence of PW1 is crucial for proper adjudication of the matter. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that asrper 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 revision.
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 revision.
/ / --,,,.
6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 31 1 of Cr.t'.C. seeking recall of PW1 for further cross-examination, holding that the evidence already on record, including the crossexamination of PWs.1 and 9, adequately addresses the defence contentions with regard to the alleged omissions and contradictions. 7.
ln view of the above, 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. Sd/. N.CHANDRA SEKHAR ,,TRUE COPY"
SECTION OFFICER To 1.
and POCSO Act erabad 2.
3.
4.
of Telangana, Hyderabacl [OUTI
5. Two CD C,rpies.
PSK/BA J
.JI HIGH CC)URT :3i1112/,2025 i t TFi; S 1 9 rr8 Tl:t:;
*
ORDER
* CRLRC.No.101 2 ol 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE %p