D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2008 on 27.08.2008 by which prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.
(2.) THE prosecution story as contained in the written report presented by the prosecutrix Sumitra Kumari was that she used to work in the house of one Sushila at village Belwatiker as the latter was a nurse by profession and prior to that she was working at Hind Sewa Sadan, Shahpur till February, 2008 where she came in contact with the petitioner Rana Rajendra Kumar Singh, a laboratory assistant in the said Sewa Sadan. As the prosecutrix and the petitioner were working together, they developed intimacy and in course of that it was alleged that the petitioner proposed the prosecutrix to marry her to which she expressed affirmation. Pursuant to such affirmation and consent for marriage the petitioner committed rape on her on 05.12.2007 for the first time on the inducement that he would marry her. Once sexual relation was established, it was alleged that the petitioner committed rape on her for about 22 times and that the petitioner had obtained Rs. 1,000 / - from her on false pretext of making preparation for their marriage but he did not solemnize marriage, instead the petitioner extended threat when she put pressure for marriage. The Chainpur Police instituted a case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and submitted charge -sheet for the alleged offence after investigation. The petitioner preferred a petition under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that under given facts and allegation no offence under Section 376 I.P.C. was made out against him, thus he may be discharged. But the learned Addl. Sessions Judge without appreciating the merit of the petition and the requirement for constituting the offence of rape as contained in Section 375 Indian Penal Code, rejected the petition with the observation, " From the perusal of the case record and the case diary I find that at this stage there is sufficient evidence for framing of the charge. There is no merit in the petition of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition dated 22.07.2008 is hereby rejected.
(3.) THE learned Counsel assailed the impugned order on the ground that the prosecutrix admitted in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was aged about 21 years at the relevant time, therefore, she was quite competent to take independent decision and that the bodily relation was established every time with her consent as admittedly, it was nowhere alleged that the petitioner had applied force in sex with her without her consent. Therefore, no offence could be attracted against him under Section 376 I.P.C.;