R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2011, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Tonk, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 & 344 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(XII) & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation that she was ravished by the petitioner. Therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. Yet, still the learned Judge has framed the charge for offence under Section 376 IPC. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the case of Gurmeet Singh Bagga v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 (3) RCC 1367 . He has further contended that the trial judge is not to act as a mere post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied on the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 and on the case of Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2007) 7 SCC 413 .
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Paresh Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has described the alleged rape. Therefore, prima facie there is strong evidence against the petitioner. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in framing the charge for offence under Section 376 IPC.;