BIPLAB ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is to the order dated 4.6.2008 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. S. T. 07 of 2008 framing the charge under Section 376(1) and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). The correctness of the order framing the charges as aforesaid has been questioned in this criminal revision.

(2.) Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(3.) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. On 20.4.2007 an FIR was lodged with the Police alleging that the accused-petitioner who used to regularly visit the house of the victim girl (the name of the victim girl is not disclosed) and about 9 months prior to the filing of the FIR at about 9 p.m. during the absence of the other family members in the house the accused-petitioner, went into the room of the victim girl, gagged her mouth and had forcible sexual intercourse with her as a result of which she became pregnant. The revision petitioner proposed to marry the victim girl and borne the medical expenses during the first six months of pregnancy. On 11.3.2007 local Panchayat held a meeting, in which the accused-petitioner admitted the paternity of the child in the womb of the victim girl and agreed to marry her. But the accused-petitioner fled away from his house before 25.3.2007 i.e. the date fixed for their marriage. On receipt of the FIR, Police registered a case, got the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 CrPC. At the close of the investigation the Police submitted chargesheet against the accused-petitioner and forwarded him to the court to stand trial. The learned Asst. Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 4.6.2008, after hearing both the sides on the matter of framing the charge, framed the charges under Sections 376(1) and 417 of IPC against the accused-petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the case was posted for hearing. Being aggrieved by the said order of framing the charges, the revision petitioner has come up with this petition challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned order. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner relying on the decision held in (2003) 4 SCC 46 Uday Vs. State of Karnataka; (2005) 1 SCC 88 Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and (2007) 7 SCC 430 Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar has submitted that the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge committed illegality by framing the charge without any materials on record. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that the victim girl was a consenting party and in view of the acceptance of the proposal of marriage made by the accused-petitioner the complainant had no case against the accused-petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge failed to record the reasons on the basis of which the charges were framed and that the impugned order was bad for want of sufficient grounds. The learned Asstt. Sessions Judge passed the following order:-