INNOCENT HORO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties are present.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the impugned order, charge has been altered materially and Sec. 376(D) of IPC and also Sec. 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences, Act (POCSO Act) has been added. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to Sec. 216(4) has submitted that the alteration of charge has prejudiced the petitioners and therefore the court ought to have directed for a new trial and there was no occasion to proceed with the trial which was for the alleged offence under Sec. 366-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Ss. 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel while referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr. P.C. has submitted that it was never the case of the prosecution that rape was committed upon the victim.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners is directed to add the informant of the case as opposite party No. 2 who is said to be the father of the victim.