MANGAYA PASPUREDDY @ P.MANGAYA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order of framing of charge under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi in S.T. Case No.21 of 2015 that the victim who is the informant in the case has neither stated about the commission of rape on her by the petitioner in the first information report nor in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and she has stated only about the attempt made by the petitioner on her to commit rape but she has stated about the commission of rape only in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the certified copy of the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim which is taken on record. He further submitted that there are no sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioner under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Whether the contradictions appearing in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the narration of events in the F.I.R. and the statement recorded by police will falsify the accusation under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or not can be adjudicated at the time of trial, on which I am not expressing any opinion but for that, I am of the view that the order of framing of charge under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed.