Telangana High Court
Vanaparthy Sinivas Srinu vs The State Of Telangana on 19 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.660, 658 & 659 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
1 Since the petitioner in all the revision cases is one and the same
and since the point involved in all the cases is also one and the same, all
these criminal revision cases are being disposed of by this common
order.
2 Crl.R.C.No.658 of 2023 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated
25.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.605 of 2023 in S.C.No.775 of 2002, on
the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO
Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to discharge the
petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D of
IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.
3 Crl.R.C.No.659 of 2023 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated
25.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.604 of 2023 in S.C.No.772 of 2002 on
the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO
Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to discharge the
petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D of
IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of
S.C/S.T (PoA) Amendment Act; and
4 Crl.R.C.No.660 of 2023 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated
25.09.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.606 of 2023 in S.C.No.776 of 2002, on
the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of POCSO
Act cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and to discharge the
petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-D of
IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of
S.C/S.T (PoA) Amendment Act.
5 The facts leading to filing of the above criminal revision cases are
that the de facto complainants lodged reports before the police
Maheswaram that the petitioner who has been working as English
teacher in ZP HS school of Maheswaram was misbehaving with the 7th
class girl students by touching their waists and even talking with them in
vulgar language. Basing on the above complaints, three cases were
registered against the petitioner for the offences stated supra.
6 It is to be noted from the back ground of the cases that during the
course of investigation the prosecution besides recording the statements
of the victims and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C, also got
recorded the statements of the victim girls under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
through the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Maheswaram.
7 While the above cases were pending and at the time of framing of
charges, the petitioner filed the above criminal petitions under section
227 Cr.P.C. in all the cases seeking to discharge from the prosecution.
The learned trial Judge by order dated 25.09.2023 dismissed all the
petitions separately. Hence these revision cases.
8 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in all the
criminal revision cases is that the petitioner never committed the alleged
offence and he never harassed the girls in any manner, he never
misbehaved with the students at any point of time. By relying on the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in State vs. Anil1 the learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the victims were examined under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein they have not attributed anything adversely
to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he relied on the
2019 SCC OnLine Del 10995
judgments of the apex Court in Dilaw ar Balu Kurane vs. State of
M aharashtra 2 , Yogesh @ Sachin Jagadish Joshi vs. State of
M aharashtra 3 , State of Bihar vs. Ram esh Singh and Prafulla
Kum ar Sam al 4 and R ukm ini Narvekar vs. Vijaya satardekar 5 .
9 In a criminal trial, the duty of the prosecution is to produce
evidences before the Court for proving the fact relating to the guilt of
the accused. The duty of the Court is to evaluate the evidences only
which are substantive in nature. The evidences become substantive,
when the same are produced either in oral or documentary before the
Court on oath in presence of the accused. Therefore, at the time of
evaluating the evidences and appreciating the materials, the Court has
to only look into the substantive evidences.
10 State vs. Anil (1 supra) heavily relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is a case where the trial court discharged the
respondent therein for the offence punishable under Sections 354A IPC
and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, basing on the Section 164 Cr.P.C
(2002) 2 SCC 135
(2008) 10 SCC 394
1979 Crl.L.J. 154
AIR 2009 SC 1013
statements of the victims. The State preferred revision against the order
of the learned trial Court. By dismissing the said review, the Delhi High
Court observed at para Nos.7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 as follows:
7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the learned
ASJ had observed that the statement of the victim and the complainant,
recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., did not reflect that the respondent
committed any offensive act upon the victims or he had any sexual intent.
It is further observed that the main ingredients of Section 12 of the
POCSO Act, i.e., sexual intent is missing in the entire act of the
respondent and therefore the prima facie offence of sexual harassment
was not made out against him and he was accordingly discharged.
8. On perusal of statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. of the victim
wherein she stated that she along with her four friends were playing on
the railway lines when the respondent asked them that after playing, they
all should come to his house and he will give them Rs. 2. She did not go
to his house and told this fact to her elder sister.
9. In the said statement the victim has not stated anything regarding
any sexual intent or sexual assault; however, the FIR was registered on
the statement made by her mother wherein she has made some
allegations against the respondent.
10. The fact remains that the victim did not mention any act of sexual
assault or sexual intent, therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the
order passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby discharging the
respondent.
11. Finding no merits in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed
along with the pending application.
11 The law is very clear that the statements recorded by the police
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and by the Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidences, but these can be used as previous
statement under Section 157 of Evidence Act. There cannot be any
dispute that the statements recorded by Judicial I Class Magistrate,
under Section 164, Cr.P.C. can be used to corroborate the evidence as
required under Section 156 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The
statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for the purpose of
corroboration and contradiction. As a matter of fact, statement recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C can also be used only for the purposes as
provided under Sections 145 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The reason behind the above principle is that these above statements
are always recorded in absence of the accused persons. Similarly, the
facts mentioned in First Information Report are also not substantive in
nature and it can only be used for the purpose of corroboration and
contradiction to it's maker.
12 In the case on hand, as seen from the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of
the victims, all the victim girls have stated that the petitioner touched
their hands and shoulders. So, there is prima facie case against the
petitioner for the offences referred above. Of course, whether the
petitioner has touched them with any ill-motive or not has to be elicited
during the course of trial. The relief of discharge from the charged
offences is nothing but throttling the prosecution at the threshold,
without allowing the materials in support of it to see the light of the day,
cannot be said to be as an exercise done to secure interests of justice
whereas it can only be stated that such exercise resulted in miscarriage
of justice. Therefore, it is not justified in bringing abrupt termination of
the proceedings qua the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner have no bearing on the case on hand.
13 For the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that
the trial Court has not committed any irregularity much less any material
irregularity in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to
discharge.
14 Accordingly, all the criminal revision cases are dismissed. The
learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the cases in accordance
with law and without being influenced by any of the observations made
herein.
15 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all these
criminal revision cases, are also dismissed.
________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 19.02.2025
K vsn
