(1.) This criminal revision filed on behalf of the petitioner accused Lalman Mishra, is directed against order dated 9.9.2014 passed by the Court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No. 244/2013, whereby charges under Section 376 (2) (g), 506 Part (II) and 392 of the I.P.C. have been framed against the petitioner Lalman Mishra and co - accused Kesri Prasad.
(2.) As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix, who was a married and pregnant lady aged about 25 years, was returning to her village from Dussera fair at around 10:00 pm on 17 -10 -2010. The petitioner Lalman and co -accused Kesri Prasad gave her a lift on their motorcycle. On the way back, they forcibly took her inside the Jungle and repeatedly raped her till about 3:00 am. Somehow, she escaped from their clutches and returned home.
(3.) The order framing charge has been assailed on behalf of the petitioner Lalman mainly on the ground that the prosecutrix was not acquainted with the petitioner Lalman from before the incident. He was not named either in the FIR lodged after a delay of three days nor was he named in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a week after the incident. In the First Information Report and the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has stated that she did not recognize companion of co -accused Kesri Prasad, who was driving the motorcycle. However, more than two months after the date of the incident i.e. on 20.12.2010, additional statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she disclosed that the un -named co -accused was in fact petitioner Lalman, who had approached her three days before the additional statement for compromise and had offered to pay her Rs. 25,000/ - in return for her silence. The prosecutrix stated in her additional statement to the police that petitioner Lalman had offered to pay her more money if she would not disclose the name of petitioner Lalman to the police.