R. RAJESHKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the impugned order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 644 of 2012 dated 17.02.2014 for dismissing the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner from the charges leveled against him, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by L.W.1, the victim girl, a case in crime No. 21 of 2011 has been registered for the offence under Sections 417, 376 and 506(i) of I.P.C. and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in S.C.No. 158 of 2012 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai. During the pendency of the case, before framing of charges, the petitioner filed an application to discharge him from the charges stating that the medical evidence and the evidence of L.W.1 is contradictory with each other.

(3.) HE would further submit that in the medial evidence, it has been stated that the hymen was intact, whereas the case of L.W.1 is that she had sexual intercourse for only one time and that has been falsified by the medial evidence and there was no charge was framed for the offence under Section 376 read with 511 of I.P.C. and hence, the charge for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. would not be attracted and there is no prima facie case for framing the said charge and that factum was not considered by the trial Court and hence he prayed for setting aside the order of the trial Court and allowing of the revision.