NEERAJ @ BOBY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397(1) read with Section 401(1) of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.04.2019 in Special Case No.05/2019 passed by XIth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, District Chhindwara whereby, learned trial Court framed the charge against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, under Section 376(2-i) and 376(2-n) of I.P.C. and as also for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision, in short, are that one accused child who is the minor committed a rape upon the prosecutrix who was the age of 12 years old, she narrated the whole ordeal incident to her parents and report lodged at Police Station Kundipura, Disrtict Chhindwara (M.P.) against that juvenile, Crime No.86/2019 registered at P.S. Kundipura, District Chhindwara. Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses. The prosecutrix lateron in the statement of Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 01.03.2019 added in that statement that when the juvenile took the prosecutrix on the Hut which is situated at Agriculture Field and called to applicant. Applicant came over there and threatened to prosecutrix if she narrated this story to anyone, he will kill her. After investigation, charge-sheet for the juvenile presented before the Juvenile Justice Board and for the applicant presented before the trial Court. After considering the material available along with the charge-sheet framed the charge against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, under Section 376(2-i) and 376(2-n) of I.P.C. and Section 506 of I.P.C.

(3.) Being aggrieved by that order of framing the charge, applicant has filed this petition on the ground that, applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. There is no material available against the applicant for commission of the rape upon the prosecutrix or helping the Juvenile for committing the rape upon her. In F.I.R. and in the statement of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. recorded before the Magistrate, prosecutrix nowhere stated the name of the applicant in spite of this, learned trial Court erred in framing the charge against the applicant, therefore, prays to discharge the applicant of the charge.