IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Victim of offence cannot file Revision Petition against order of acquittal.
(2) Charge-sheet filed by Head of investigation team of CID before jurisdictional Magistrate, is not a charge-sheet in eye of law as it is not filed by Officer in-charge of a Police Station.

ORDER

V. Srishananda, J.—The victim and the State are in Revision challenging the order dated 31.03.2016 passed in SC No.1242/2015 by the learned LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Special Court (CCH-54) and direct the 2nd respondent (Pontiff of the Ramachandrapura Mutt) be tried for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and 508 of the IPC.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Revision Petitions are as under:

A complaint came to be filed by Smt. Amshumathi @ Amshu Shastry (not victim) who is the daughter of the victim, for the offence punishable under Section 354A and 506 of IPC against the second respondent herein on 26.8.2014 which was initially registered in Banashankari Police Station in Crime No. 219/2014, later on transferred to Girinagar Police Station. Crime Girinagar police, after recording the further statement of the victim, invoked Sections 376(2)(f) of the IPC in Cr.No. 164/2015. The investigation was referred to Crime Investigation Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘CID’ for short), Bengaluru. Matter was thoroughly investigated by CID and filed charge sheet against the second respondent Pontiff under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and 508 of the IPC.

3. On receipt of charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. Presence of the second respondent was secured. At that juncture, accused-second respondent filed an application under Section 227 Cr.PC. seeking an order of discharge. State resisted the same by filing written objections. When the matter was under consideration, the victim filed a petition before this court in Criminal Petition No.1329/2016 which was dismissed by order dated 10.03.2016. Against the said order, the victim said to have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a SLP. In the meantime, the learned Sessions Court proceeded with the hearing on discharge application filed by accused and by order dated 31.3.2016, learned Trial Judge allowed the application filed by the accused and acquitted the accused from the charges . Being aggrieved by the same, the victim as well as the State are be fore the Court in these revision petitions.

4. In the Revision Petition filed by the victim, following grounds have been raised:

* The order of the learned Sessions Judge is bad in law and materials on record. As laid down in the statute under section 327 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as amended in 1983 and 2009 the enquiry into and trial should be conducted in camera and in camera trial shall be conducted by a Women Judge or a Magistrate. Even though such Women Judges were also available in Bengaluru City, it was not considered.

* The charge sheet filed by the 1st respondent had clearly indicated the offence falling within the purview of offences punishable under section 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and 508 of Indian Penal Code.

* It is strange that the learned Sessions Judge passed an order running into 117 pages. In the said order the learned Sessions Judge had discussed with regard to the statements made by the charge sheet witnesses during the course of the investigation. Further, the learned Sessions Judge also discussed about the scientific experts opinion. The entire order looks as if a mini trial has been conducted in the said case.

* The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts have repeatedly held that, while passing an order on discharge application, the trial court shall not pass elaborate orders discussing about the statements of witnesses and other documents filed along with the charge sheet. Accepting the contention of the charge sheet on the whole, if the court comes to the conclusion that no case is made out, it is justified to pass an order of discharge. In the instant case the learned Sessions Judge discussed the statement of witnesses, the expert’s opinion, the documents produced by the Prosecution and came to the conclusion tha