Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 324, 354, 354B, 376 427, 451 & 511/34 and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act—Discharge for offences—Revision—Trial Court has conducted a roving enquiry into the merits of case and has gone into minute details of appreciating the statement of witnesses to the extent of finding out the discrepancies in their statements—Statements as put up before the trial court were recorded by the Investigating Officer and witnesses were not examined as yet before the trial court and had not been put to cross-examination so as to test their veracity and to reach a conclusion as to whether there were any discrepancies emerging on record which could demolish the case of prosecution—To have based the discharge of accused persons on the ground of discrepancies after perusal of bare statements of few witnesses is not permitted in law at the stage of passing order on charge—Impugned order set aside—Matter remanded back to the trial court for consideration afresh in accordance with law—Petition allowed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227]
[Para 10]
Sections 324, 354, 354B, 376 427, 451 & 511/34 and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act—Discharge for offences—Revision—Finding regarding non mentioning of entire story related to offence at the time of lodging of the FIR and subsequent statements and improvement therein could not have been basis of discharge—Impugned order set aside—Matter remanded back to the trial court for consideration afresh in accordance with law—Petition allowed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227]
[Para 11]
Sections 324, 354, 354B, 376 427, 451 & 511/34 and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act—Discharge for offences—Revision—Reliance placed on Call Detail Records and presumption regarding the accused persons not being at the spot could not have become the basis of discharge of accused(s) since it will only emerge at the time of trial as to whether the accused persons were, in fact, in possession of their mobile phones or not at the time of commission of alleged offence—Impugned order set aside—Matter remanded back to the trial court for consideration afresh in accordance with law—Petition allowed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227]
[Para 12]
Sections 324, 354, 354B, 376 427, 451 & 511/34 and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act—Discharge for offences—Revision—Contention of respondents that previous enmity between the parties lay at the heart of lodging of the present FIR could not have been looked into at the stage of considering as to whether prima facie charge was made out against the accused persons or not, since it is a matter of trial as to whether the statements and the complaint against the present accused(s) were motivated or not—Same cannot be decided at the stage of framing of charge—Impugned order set aside—Matter remanded back to the trial court for consideration afresh in accordance with law—Petition allowed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227].
[Para 13]
Sections 324, 354, 354B, 376 427, 451 & 511/34 and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act—Discharge for offences—Revision—Contention of respondents that material on record does not even reveal grave suspicion regarding commission of offence and it is improbable that this offence could have been committed has no force, since statements of witnesses on record reveal that there was grave suspicion regarding commission of offence and there is a distinction between grave suspicion regarding commission of offence and whether case will end into conviction—As per law, it is not to be seen as to whether case will end into conviction or not but a prima facie view and arrays suspicion that offence could have taken place will suffice to frame charge against an accused—Impugned order set aside—Matter remanded back to the trial court for consideration afresh in accordance with law—Petition allowed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227].
[Para 14]
Sections 324, 354, 354B, 376 427, 451 & 511/34 and Section 4/8 of the POCSO Act—Discharge for offences—Revision—Observation of trial court that perusal of the MLC and statements of witnesses reveal that injuries could have been self inflicted—Erroneous—Since the court concerned, on its own, could not have reached the conclusion that injuries were self-inflicted, without recording testimony of the doctor concerned without trial—Trial Court has even gone ahead to hold that it is apparent that complainant has created plan to falsely implicate the accused persons—All these findings have been given by the trial court at the stage of framing of charge, which are untenable in law—Impugned order set aside—Matter remanded back to the trial court for consideration afresh in accordance with law—Petition allowed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227].
[Paras 15 & 16]