APHC010489162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1044/2025 Between: 1. KODALI GANGADHARA RAO @ GANGAIAH, S/O. BALA KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O VELIVONU VILLAGE, CHALLAPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VELAGAPUDI HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, O/O. SP, KRISHNA DISTRICT, CHILAKALAPUDI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, AVANIGADDA SUB- DIVISION, AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, O/O DGP , MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR DIST 5. VICTIM, VICTIM ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased to Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.56/2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Special Judge for speedy trial of offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, Krishna at Machilipatnam (hereinafter referred to as “The Trial Court”), including the taking of cognizance and refusal to transfer the case despite application under CrI.M.P.No.634/2025, for want of jurisdiction IA 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 to grant Interim Stay of all further proceedings pending before the Lower court i.e., the Hon’ble Special Judge for speedy trial of offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, Krishna at Machilipatnam vide Spl.S.C.No. 56 of 2025 pending disposal of this main application, in favour of the present petitioner/ accused viz., Kodali Gangadhara Rao @ Gangaiah and agaisnt the respondents, in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K.RAJGURU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C.‟), has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused aggrieved by the Order dated 20.06.2025 passed in CF No.634 of 2025 (dated 10.03.2025). 2. The respondent No.5 is the victim and the Petitioner herein is the Accused and they are residing at Velivolu village and are neighbours. As per the complaint averments, on 20.12.2021 the Accused went to the house of the victim and on the false promise that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse with her taking advantage of absence of her parents in the home. Consequently, the victim got pregnant. When she is at the eighth month of the pregnancy, the petitioner refused to marry her, subsequently, with the help and support of her parents, she lodged a report before the Police. Based on the said report, the Police registered Crime No.374 of 2021 of Challapalli Police Station, Krishna District, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) IPC and Sections 5(J)(II)(L) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. After completion of investigation by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Avanigadda, the charge sheet is filed. The Learned Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Krishna at Machilipatnam, took cognizance of the offences and the same is numbered as Spl.S.C.No.56 of 2022. During the course of examination, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and exhibits P1 and P13 were marked. The Prosecution filed Crl.M.P.No.392 of 2025 for issuance of summons to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Avanigadda and the Assistant Director of APFSL, 3 Mangalagiri to examine them as witnesses, the Petitioner filed CF No.634 of 2025 under Section 361 of BNSS, 2023 questioning the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the victim is aged 19 years at the time of alleged offence and in such circumstances, the Special Court does not have jurisdiction and prayed to commit the case to IX Additional District Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The Court staff raised objection about the maintainability of the petition and returned the same. Learned counsel for the Petitioner re-presented the petition with an endorsement “Call at bench”. The matter is called on bench and having heard both sides, the Learned Special Judge, by Order dated 20.06.2025 dismissed the petition. Questioning the same, the present criminal revision case is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 to 4/State. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Learned Special Judge failed to see that the victim is aged above 18 years on the date of offence and she does not fall within the definition under Section 2(d) of POCSO Act, 2012 and taking cognizance against the Petitioner under POCSO Act, is contrary to law and lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no valid document filed by the prosecution in proof of the age of the victim that she is allegedly minor at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, continuation of proceedings before the Trial Court is violative of principles of natural justice and it hits the merits of the case. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that Ex.P5 /study certificate issued by the Head Master of Z.P.High School, Goginenipalem would show that her date of birth is 10.11.2003. Apart from that, the evidence of 4 P.W.1/victim girl is that she was studying X class when the petitioner/ accused used to follow her. Therefore, the victim girl is a minor at the time of commission of offence is not in dispute and the learned Special Judge has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/accused for transfer of the case to other court from POCSO Court and it is justified. 6. It is necessary that the age of the victim to be below 18 years at the time of offence to take cognizance of an offence under provisions of POCSO Act. The concerned Courts must follow a strict hierarchy for age determination, prioritizing matriculation certificates, school records, or birth records, with medical tests like ossification tests being the last resort. 7. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is legislation which aims at protecting children from all types of sexual abuse. Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations in 1989, the offences against children were not redressed by way of any legislation in India till the year 2012. It provides stringent deterrents for the commission of offences against children. 8. As is evident from above, the age of consent is a dynamic topic that is subject to extensive deliberation and legislation every now and then. The age of consent for engaging in legal sexual activity as of right now in India is 18 years. Any sexual activity that takes place between individuals under the prescribed age constitutes an offence. 9. Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution in the instant case are that the victim is minor at the time of the alleged incident. Evidence was let in by the victim girl as P.W.1 is that the accused stalked her for three years continuously 5 since her 10th class. As per Ex.P7 /Wound certificate, dated 27.12.2021 issued by P.w.8/ Medical Officer would reveal that the victim girl is 30 weeks gestation age fetus and that she was carrying 7th month pregnancy by the date of presentation of Ex.P1/Report and that she got pregnant when she was minor. Apart from that as per the DNA Report, the petitioner/accused is the biological father of the female child born to the victim girl and victim girl is the biological mother. This evidence is crucial to show that the victim girl is below 18 years i.e, minor at the time of the alleged commission of the offence of rape and the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 would apply to the case of the Petitioner. The Learned Special Judge rightly came to the conclusion by considering the facts of the case coupled with documentary evidence and dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner. This Court does not find any irregularities or infirmities committed by the Trial Court warranting interference of this Court and this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Considering the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it is left open to the Petitioner to raise his contentions in his defence and the learned Special Judge is directed to consider and take an appropriate decision over the matter according to law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 10.03.2026 Mjl/* 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 1044 of 2025 10.03.2026 Mjl/*