JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.02.2020 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 Sections 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.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materiel available on record.

5. From the perusal of material on record, it is evident that the prosecutrix was aged about 14 years of the age at the time of incident and in her statement, she has specifically levelled allegation with regard to rape against the present petitioner.

6. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the initial stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage.

7. In the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 476, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as below:

"While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charges against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted. Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. If two views are possible and materials indicate mere suspicion, not being grave suspicion, against accused then he may be discharged. The court has to consider broad probabilities of case, total effect of evidenc