Telangana High Court
Jalli Shiva Kumar vs The State Of State Of Telangana on 13 July, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9286 of 2026
Between :
Jalli Shiva Kumar S/o Jalli Raju, aged 23 years,
occ; student R/o H.No.23-1-29/1, Thyagaraya
Colony, Backside Miraj Cinemas, Kothapet,
Hyderabad
....Petitioner/Accused No.1
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court for the State of
Telangana at Hyderabad and another.
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 13.07.2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9286 of 2026
% Dated 13.07.2026
# Jalli Shiva Kumar S/o Jalli Raju, aged 23
years, occ; student R/o H.No.23-1-29/1,
Thyagaraya Colony, Backside Miraj Cinemas,
Kothapet, Hyderabad
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court for the
State of Telangana at Hyderabad and
another.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. K.Ramesh Babu
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, Addl.P.P.
(For R.1)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. Criminal Appeal No.2634 of 2023, dated 29.08.2023
(Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9286 of 2026
DATE: 13.07.2026
Between :
Jalli Shiva Kumar.
....Petitioner/Accused No.1
AND
The State of Telangana and another
....Respondents
:ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the
petitioner/accused No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2026
passed by the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Trial and
Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B.Nagar in Crl.M.P.No.1410 of 2025 in S.C.Spl. No.292 of 2023,
whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner
seeking to recall PWs.1 and 2 for further cross-examination.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
pursuant to the order dated 23.06.2026, the concerned
Investigating Officer served the notice to LW.1/complainant, who is
none other than the father of the victim/LW.2, on 07.07.2026. In
spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter
4
appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to
proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
3. Heard Mr.K.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is accused No.1 in S.C.Spl.No.292 of 2023, for the
offences under Sections 354-D and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC‘) and Section 11 r/w 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the
POCSO Act‘). The petitioner could not cross-examine PWs.1 and 2
on 14.11.2025 on the ground that the counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner and accused No.3 is not attended the Court.
Though the petitioner and accused No.3 requested the trial Court to
grant adjournment on 14.11.2025, the trial Court directed them to
proceed with the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 and recorded
that the petitioner and accused No.3 cross-examined PWs.1 and 2
though the petitioner has not cross examined. The cross-
examination of PWs.1 and 2 is very much essential to prove the
innocence of the petitioner. Unless PWs.1 and 2 are recalled for
further cross-examination, the petitioner will be put to great
hardship.
5
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1410 of 2025 before the learned
trial Court to protract the litigation on one way or the other. As per
the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the
victim cannot be called repeatedly to testify in the Court. Hence,
the petitioner is not entitled to seek recalling of PWs.1 and 2 for
further cross-examination.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that on 14.11.2025 PWs.1 and 2 were examined in
chief and they were cross-examined by the learned counsel for
accused No.2 and on the said date, the petitioner and accused No.3
specifically requested the learned trial Court seeking adjournment
on the ground that their counsel is not responding to their phone
calls. At that juncture, the learned trial Court has directed the
petitioner and accused No.3 to proceed with the cross-examination.
Accordingly, the trial Court recorded in the deposition of PWs.1 and
2 as if the petitioner and accused No.3 had cross-examined them.
7. It is very much relevant to extract the cross-examination of
PW.1 by the petitioner and accused No.3, which reads as follows:
6
“Cross-examination by counsel for Accused No.1 and 3:
A1 and A3 present and represented that their counsel
is not responding to their calls. Today victim present as
such A1 and A3 directed to cross examine the witness.
Chief examination of the victim explained to them through
the help of Special PP as they were standing behind the
curtain.
Cross examination by A1 and A3 (Party in person):
It is not true to suggest that A1 and A3 (themselves)
did not commit any offense against me and they never
followed and threatened me as stated by me in my
evidence.”
8. The record further reveals that on 19.11.2025, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1410
of 2025 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall PWs.1 and 2. The
learned trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that as
per the provisions of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, the victim
shall not be recalled repeatedly to the Court. The said reason given
by the learned trial Court is not in dispute. Whereas in the case on
hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and accused
No.3 before the trial Court has not attended on 14.11.2025 and in
the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically
mentioned the reason that due to ill-health, he could not attend the
Court. In such circumstances the trial Court ought to have given
an opportunity to the petitioner by imposing any condition or close
7
the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, on the other hand, directed the
petitioner to proceed with the cross-examination.
9. It is relevant to mention that in Satbir Singh v. State of
Haryana and others 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is very wide and is intended to enable
the Court to arrive at the truth and render a just decision. The
Court observed that a witness may be recalled at any stage of the
trial if such recall is essential for the just decision of the case and
when the party seeking recall did not have an earlier opportunity to
elicit relevant facts. It was further held that recall should not be
refused on technical grounds when such examination would assist
the Court in proper adjudication of the matter and when no
prejudice would be caused to the opposite party, who would still
have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Accordingly, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the orders of the courts below and
allowed the recall of the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for
further examination.
10. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner is facing trial
for the heinous offences and PWs.1 and 2 were not cross-examined
on 14.11.2025 due to non-availability of his counsel. It is trite law
1 Criminal Appeal No.2634 of 2023 dated 29.08.2023
8
that due to the mistake on the part of the counsel, the party could
not be suffered.
11. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satbir Singh (supra), this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner is entitled to give an opportunity
for cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, and the impugned order
dated 28.02.2026 passed in Crl.MP.No.1410 of 2025 in S.C. Spl.
No.292 of 2023 by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside
and accordingly set aside.
12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, subject to
condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees five thousand only) each to PWs.1 and 2 and to conclude
the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 on the specified date as fixed
by the learned trial Court. In default, the learned trial Court is
entitled to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 13.07.2026
Note: Issue C.C. in two days.
b/o
pgp
