AJAY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant filed this revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in S.T.No.57/2017 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, whereby the learned trial Court framed charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'the IPC') along with Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as 'the POCSO Act').

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the prosecutrix, who was minor at the time of incident lodged a report against the applicant and on that report Crime No.193/2017 was registered in Police Station, Baheriya, District-Sagar for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act stating therein that the applicant misconceived her and after developing love affairs and on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her and she became pregnant out of that intercourse and ultimately the applicant denied for marriage and threatened her if she disclose about the incident, he will kill her. Then she went along with her grand-mother at Mathura and where she delivered a child but later on prosecutrix mustered courage and filed a report against the applicant. Applicant was arrested during investigation. He was 19 years old at the time of his arrest on 17.07.2017. During trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, (Special Court designated for trial of offence of POCSO Act) vide order dated 10.11.2017 framed charge against the applicant under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 5(L) and 5(J)(II) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Applicant filed an application alleging that at the time of incident applicant was below the age of 18 years. He was minor and pray to send this case before the Juvenile Justice Board. The trial Court vide order dated 13.10.2017 disposed of that application and counted the day of incidence and on that found that accused has completed 18 years of age on the date of incidence.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2017 as well as order of framing of charge dated 10.11.2017, the applicant filed this revision on the ground that the prosecutrix delivered of a baby child on 16.06.2017 and also alleged that since last two years, the accused and she was indulged in sexual intercourse and she was pregnant out of that intercourse. When counting earlier two years, accused was below the 18 years of age and he was juvenile.