MADANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 18/2/2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Churu, in Sessions Case No. 94/2019 by which the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence under Ss. 376 (2)(F)(1), 366 A, 370 of IPC and 5 P/6 POCSO Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is innocent and a false report has been lodged against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the FIR was lodged belatedly and prosecution has not given any satisfactory explanation in causing delay in lodging the FIR. It is further argued that there is no allegation regarding rape in the FIR and there is contradiction with regard to age of the prosecutrix. Therefore, learned trial Court has committing error in framing the charge against the petitioner for committing rape. Therefore, the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the at the time of incident the prosecutrix was aged about 14 years and the specific allegations has been levelled against the petitioner for committing rape. Hence, no interference is called for from this Court.