Shaik Abdul Rashid vs State Of Telangana

Heard Sri E.Ramesh Chandra Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing Respondent.

Seeking the Court to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2022 in S.C.No.1085 of 2019, dated 18.10.2022, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner failed to cross-examine PWs 1 to 3 and their evidence was closed and thereafter, the petitioner moved an application to recall those witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, but the Court dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel states that in case an opportunity is not given to the petitioner to cross-examine those crucial witnesses, he would be convicted as he would not be in a position to put forth his version and therefore, fair opportunity may be given to petitioner to cross-examine those witnesses.

Per contra, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that when PWs 1 to 3 were examined in-chief, the petitioner failed to cross-examine those witnesses and therefore, their evidence was closed and thereafter, the petitioner moved an application to recall those witnesses. The said application was allowed and though the witnesses were again present, they were not cross-examined and hence, their evidence was closed. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by stating so, contends that there are no grounds for the petitioner to seek the same relief again and hence, the Criminal Petition may be dismissed.

A perusal of the impugned order discloses that on 08.06.2022, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and on that day, there was no representation from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and therefore, cross-examination was recorded as ‘Nil’. Subsequently, Crl.M.P.No.74 of 2022 was moved to recall those witnesses for cross-examination and it was allowed on costs. On 23.08.2008, again, there was no representation from the learned counsel for the petitioner and even costs to witnesses were not paid. The petitioner was informed by the Court to call his advocate and the matter was called thrice, but the counsel did not turn up. Basing on the above observations, the learned Judge of the trial Court disallowed the request of the petitioner.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner is a Deaf-and-Dumb person aged about 75 years and he could not hear the directions of the Court and the counsel, who was engaged in other Court, could not appear and thus, the petitioner is not at fault.

Having considered the submissions thus made and on perusal of the relevant material that is brought on record, this Court is of the view that though there is negligence on part of the petitioner in pursuing the matter, yet, his valuable right of cross-examination should be protected. Nowhere it is indicated in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to attend the Court or was negligent in pursuing the matter. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not take care to conduct the case diligently. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be put to fault. This Court considers desirable to set-aside the order which is under challenge.

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The order that is rendered by the Court of Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2022 in S.C.No.1085 of 2019, dated 18.10.2022, is set-aside. PWs 1 to 3 are ordered to be recalled. On their appearance, the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine them on payment of costs of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to PW1 and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) each to PWs 2 & 3. In case such costs are not paid, the trial Court is directed to disallow the request of the petitioner for cross-examination.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.