1 2025:CGHC:16311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 447 of 2025 1 - Kamlesh Kumar Kushwaha S/o Vikramaditya Kushwaha Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Janakpur, P.S. - Raghunathnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Raghunathnagar, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For applicant : Mr. A. K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent : Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board 07/04/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act) Dist- Balrampur Ramanujganj, in Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 44/2022 whereby the charge against the petitioner has been framed 2 for the offence under Sections 341, 376 (3) of IPC, Section 4(2) of POCSO Act and Section 3 (2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid Special Sessions Case (POCSO) No. 44/2022 which is arising out of the FIR of Crime No. 36/2022 registered at Police Station- Raghunath Nagar, Dist- Balrampur Ramanujganj on the complaint made by the brother of the victim. On 10.03.2022, the complainant lodged a report against the petitioner that on 10.03.2022 his minor sister had gone to school for examination and at about 12.30 pm when she returning from the school along with her friends on the way near Janakpur canal, the petitioner started assaulting the victim by Chappal, committed rape upon her. After seeing the act of the petitioner, her friends fled away from the place and when his wife informed about the incident, he went to the spot and saw his sister is lying there in unconscious condition. He took her to Raghunathpur Hospital and when regent her consciousness, she disclosed about the incident and then he lodged the report. The FIR for the offence under Section 341, 376 of IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act was registered. After due investigation, the charge- sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court where the charge has been framed on 21.02.2025 which is under challenged in the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and there is no ingredients of any alleged offence. In the FSL report there is no semen or sperms were found on the vaginal slides of the victim. The alleged incident is said to have been occurred on 10.03.2022 whereas the petitioner was traveling to Rameshwaram by Shri Murgan Travels Bus and not present in the place of incident. The petitioner was working as a Waiter in a hotel at Tamaram, Chennai, which is clear from the document annexed with the petition which are the travel ticket and special darshan entrance ticket at Shri Ramnath Swami Temple, Rameshwaram. He would also submit that in the year 2021, there was a dispute between the father of the victim and the father of the 3 petitioner with respect to sale of tendu patta and the father of the victim had threatened to the petitioner’s family that he will see them. The victim is a major girl which also reflects from the ration card issued by the Gram Panchayat. He would also submit that there in no injuries found on the body of the victim, therefore, the ingredients of the alleged offence is not satisfied to frame charge and to proceed with the trial. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there are sufficient and overwhelming evidence against the petitioner which prima facie disclosed the offence for framing of charge and to proceed with the trial. From the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses, it is apparent that the victim was being subjected to rape by the petitioner when she was returning from the school after her examination. There are statements of the friends of the victim that when they were returning on the way the petitioner came there and committed rape upon the victim. When they objected, he went them away from there by threatened them. He would also submit that the petitioner is taking the plea of alibi that he was not present on the spot on 10.03.2022 as he was at Rameshwaram but his plea is his defence which is to be proved during the course of trial. In view of the material available in the charge-sheet, the learned trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the petitioner and his petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles with respect to the consideration at the stage of framing of charge which is reported in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has 4 committed offence. It is also held that the Court is required at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and at the stage of framing of charge the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded is likely to be convicted or not. 7. In the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 19 that- "14. It is of relevance to refer to certain judgements of this Court. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) 7, the appellant and two other individuals were charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It had been alleged that the appellant and the other accused persons had forcibly compelled the deceased to sign a settlement giving up a part of his share in the profits from the sale of certain land. This led to a dispute and as a result of the mental harassment suffered by the deceased, he committed suicide. The Court affirmed the framing of charges by the trial court. The two-judge Bench of this Court laid down the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. Justice D K Jain held thus: "19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar ((2001) 9 SCC 618: 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088), where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, 7 (2009) 16 SCC 605 words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation." (Emphasis supplied) 5 15. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances, the Court noted that prima facie, the offence of abetment of suicide was made out. "22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and therefore, clause Firstly of Section 107 IPC was attracted." (Emphasis supplied) 16. It was also noted that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the accused had committed the offence: 25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction." 17. A two-Judge Bench of this Court, in Rajbir Singh v State of UP 8 noted that in 8 (2006) 4 SCC 51 accordance with Section 227, the High Court must ascertain whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or there is ground for "presuming" that the offence has been committed. Justice GP Mathur held thus: 9. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, the Court while examining the scope of Section 227 held as under. "14.... Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of inquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The 'ground" in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary 6 material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime." 10. The High Court did not at all apply the relevant test, namely, whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer is in the affirmative an order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face the trial. The High Court after merely observing that "as the firing was aimed at the other persons and accidentally the deceased Pooja Balmiki was passing through that way and she was hit and further observing that "the applicant neither intended to kill the deceased nor was she aimed at because of the reason that she was a Scheduled Caste" set aside the order by which the charges had been framed against Respondent 2. There can be no manner of doubt that the provisions of Section 301 IPC have been completely ignored and the relevant criteria for judging the validity of the order passed by the learned Special Judge directing framing of charges have not been applied. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside." (Emphasis supplied) 18. In the present case, there is sufficient material on record to uphold the order framing charges of the Trial Court. The discharge of the accused was not justified. The High Court has evidently ignored what has emerged during the course of the investigation. The material indicates that several complaints were filed by the deceased. The last of them was filed a few days before the suicide. It is alleged that the respondent had taken a loan of Rs 5 lakhs through fraudulent means in the name of the deceased and an altercation took place between him and the deceased in that regard. Moreover, the respondent is alleged to have got the deceased evicted from a rented house as well as terminated from her employment at Central Bank. There is a dying declaration. 19. We, however, clarify that this judgment shall not affect the merits of the trial. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 31-1-2018. 8. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shivcharan Bansal and others, (2020) 2 SCC 290 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge the trial Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or a roving enquiry into the same and it has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused to proceed with the trial. 7 9. Revering to the facts of the present case, from the statement of the victim as well as her friends, it is quite apparent that she made the allegation of rape against the appellant that when they were returning from their school after their examination, as and when they reached near Janakpur canal, the petitioner came there, started assaulting her and committed rape upon her. She lost her consciousness and regen in the hospital and disclosed the incident to her brother and sister-in-law. The statement of the victim have duly been supported by the statement of her friends who accompanied with her at that time. Whether or not the petitioner was there on the place of incident or he was present at Rameshwaram are the matter of evidence which is to be proved during the trial by leading evidence by the parties. It is the defence of the petitioner that he was not present there, however, there is material in the charge-sheet that he committed rape upon the victim on the alleged date and time. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material in the charge-sheet to frame charge and to proceed with the trial of the case. Accordingly, I do not found any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision deserves to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.17 10:56:16 +0530