At the stage of framing charges, the court must apply its mind judicially and consider whether there is sufficient material on record to presume that the accused committed the offence. The court cannot abdicate its responsibility to frame charges and must not accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the Order dated 26-8-92, passed by the Ld. Asst. Sessions Judge, Purulia, framing charge under Secs. 376/420/493 of the I. P. C. in SC Case No. 75 of 1991, arising out of Purulia Town, P. S. Case No. 143/1989 dated 2-8-89 under Section 376 and 420 of the IPC.

( 2 ) ON 2nd August, 1989, Ratna Chatterjee of Dulmi, Purulia lodged a petition of complaint before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Purulia and the said complaint was sent to Purulia Town, P. S. Case for treating same as F. I. R. The petitioner who is a young man, gainfully employed, in Tata Yodogawa Ltd. is a resident of Vill. Muri of P. S.- Silli, Dist. Ranchi. Smt. Ratna Chatterjee and the petitioner were known to each other from before and the petitioner used to come to the house of the complainant. Ratna, O. P. No. 2 who is a graduate with Honours in Economics from Chaibasa College. In December, 1987, the petitioner came to the house of Ratna. He often visited in the absence of her father. Her mother was working at Muri. On 26th April, 1989 Ratna was alone in her house at mid-day and the maid servant was engaged in house-work; taking advantage of the situation the petitioner stealthily entered the room of Ratna and committed rape upon her by putting a pillow cover in her mouth and terrorising her by showing a knife. She tried to resist but in vain. Thereafter, the accused person twice committed inter course with her. He also told Ratna not to disclose the matter to any third person and assured her that he would marry her. She became pregnant and had been carrying for some weeks, when she went to Muri to tell her mother about the thing, and disclosed everything to her, then the mother told her father about it. Both of them informed the matter to the parents of the accused person when they agreed to the marriage of the petitioner with Ratna after his appointment at Gomaria. Thereafter, the accused petitioner and his parents refused to solemnize the marriage and there was thus a delay in filing the F. I. R.

( 3 ) THE Police after investigation submitted chargesheet on 30-1-90, u/secs. 376 and 420 of the IPC against the accused petitioner. The Ld. Trial Judge by the impugned order has come to the findings that there are sufficient materials for the framing of charge u/s. 376/420/493 of the IPC. The main contention of the revisionist is that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Judge is the result of non-application of mind and that materials on record do not make out any case under Sections 376, 420 and 493 of the IPC. The stand of the petitioner is that there was a love-affair between the petitioner and the Ratna and she was a consenting party to the alleged incident of co-habitation and therefore, the question of rape does not arise and she was also more than 18 years of age at the material time. According to the petitioner, there is no element for constitution an offence under Sections 420, 493 and 376 of the IPC.

( 4 ) NO one has appeared on behalf of the State, the ld. advocate on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has hotly contested the matter.

( 5 ) IT appears from the certified copy of the statement of Ratna Chatterjee, Opposite Party No. 2 recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. that she gave out her age as 24 years on 5-8-89 and the occurrence took place on 26th April, 1989. It is prima facie obvious that the alleged victim girl was more than 18 years. The ld. advocate for the revisionist has submitted that there is absolutely no material for framing of a charge under Section 493 of IPC. The said Section contains two ingredients :- (I) deceit issuing false belief in the existence of lawful marriage;and (ii) co-habitation with the person causing such belief,

( 6 ) IN the instant case, it has been submitted that there is no whisper either in the FIR or in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. that the revisionist deceitfully caused a false belief