- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.2010, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 456 and 376 IPC, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) Shortly, the facts of the case are that on 28.06.2009, the respondent No.2, Smt. Kamla Devi, lodged a report at Police Station Dantaramgarh against the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, the Police registered a FIR, FIR No.105/2009, for offences under Sections 456 and 354 IPC and commenced investigation. But, after a thorough investigation, the Police submitted a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 456 and 376 IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. From where, the case was finally committed to the learned Judge for framing of the charges and for trial. Vide order dated 27.9.2010, the learned Judge framed the charges for offences under Sections 456 and 376 IPC against the petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in the FIR, the prosecutrix did not allege the commission of rape. In fact, according to her, the petitioner had merely entered into her room and outraged her modesty. Even in her initial statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she did not claim that she was ravished by the petitioner. It is only after a lapse of eight months that in her supplementary statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she alleges that she had been ravished by the petitioner. Secondly, the prosecutrix's statement is not corroborated by the medical report. According to the medical report, there are no signs of violence on her body. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the offence under Section 376 IPC has not been made out. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the case of Premiya @ Prem Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan,2008 4 RecCriR 539 and on the case of Lalliram & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 10 SCC 69.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that the prosecutrix happens to be an illiterate and widow women, who had gone in the dead of the night along with her family members to the Police Station to lodge a report. Despite her request to the Police that they should register a case of rape, the Police did not do so. Therefore, on the next day, on 29.6.2009, she filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, wherein she had clearly stated that despite her request, the Police did not register a case for rape. In fact, she also alleged that the Police had threatened her that in case she were to register a case of rape, they would falsely implicated her. In her supplementary statement, she has narrated this fact and has explained the discrepancy which exists between her initial statement, and the supplementary one. According to her, it is due to the fault of the Police. Secondly, the prosecutrix happens to be the star witness of the prosecution. Even if she is not corroborated by the medical evidence, at this juncture, the same cannot dilute the veracity of her statement. Thirdly, at the time of framing of the charge, the learned Judge is not expected to meticulously examine the evidence. In fact, he is required merely to see whether a strong prima facie case does exist against the accused-person or not;