At the stage of framing of the charge, the Judge is required to consider whether there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out.

ORDER

M.R. Shah, J. - Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2017 passed by High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Revision Application No. 60 of 2017 by which the High Court has dismissed the said Revision Application preferred by the appellant herein original accused and has refused to discharge the appellant-original accused for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 341, 342, 376 (2) (f) and 376 (2) (k) of the IPC, appellant original accused has preferred the present appeal.

3. That the appellant herein original accused is facing the trial for the offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 341, 342, 376 (2) (f) and 376 (2) (k) of the IPC. The criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellant herein pursuant to the FIR lodged on 22.11.2013 by the Police Inspector, CID, Crime Branch, Dona Paula for the aforesaid offences alleged to have been committed on 21.11.2013. That the Investigating Officer collected the relevant material/evidence and also recorded the statement of the relevant witnesses including the prosecutrix and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. That thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa vide Order dated 07.09.2017 ordered charge to be framed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 341, 342, 376 (2) (f) and 376 (2) (k) of the IPC.

3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa ordering charge to be framed against the appellant herein original accused for the aforesaid offences, the appellant herein-original accused approached the High Court by way of Revision Application.

3.2 By the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has dismissed the said Revision Application and has refused to discharge the accused for the offences for which he has been charged. Hence, the appellant-original accused is before this Court by way of present appeal.

4. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant herein original accused and Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in not exercising the revisional jurisdiction and has materially erred in not discharging the appellant original accused from the offences for which he has been charged.

5.1 Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused has further submitted that the High Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the scope and ambit of powers to be exercised under Section 227 and 228 of the CrPC.

5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused that the material collected during the course of the investigation and the evidence so far on record do not make out even a prima facie case against the appellant for the offences for which he has been charged.

5.3 Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused has further submitted that even from the CCTV footage no case is made out against the appellant for the offences for which he has been charged.

5.4 Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused has taken us to some WhatsApp messages by the prosecutrix and has commented upon the same and has submitted that the prosecutrix is not reliable at all and the prosecutrix shall not be believed.

5.5 It is further submitted by Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original accused that in the present case, the complainant and the Investigating Officer are the same and ther