At discharge stage, material contradictions in prosecutrix statements, lack of medical corroboration, and inconsistent theft allegations justify discharge if no prima facie case, preventing abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to order dated 20.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 Mandi, Distt. Mandi, HP in S.T. Registration No.48 of 2020 under Sections 376, 342, 382, 506, 323 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’), whereby, respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) came to be discharged of the allegations levelled against him.

2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner/State is that learned Court below, while passing impugned order dated 20.10.2023, has failed to appreciate the evidence as well as material adduced on record in its right perspective, as a result thereof, the respondent, who has committed heinous crime under Section 376 of IPC, has been erroneously discharged.

3. While making this Court peruse FIR lodged at the behest of the victim/prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity), Mr. Rajan Kohal, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that on 30.11.2019, while victim/prosecutirx was returning from forest after grazing her mules and horses and had stopped at the shop of the accused to purchase sugar and other items, respondent forcibly dragged her to the basement room and thereafter sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Mr. Kohal stated that husband of petitioner, who reached the spot after having heard cries of the victim/prosecutrix, rescued her from the clutches of respondent, who had also snatched gold ornaments as well as mobile phone of the victim/prosecutrix. While referring to the statements of victim/prosecutrix recorded under Sections 154 & 164 of Cr.PC, Mr. Kohal further attempted to argue that victim/prosecutrix categorically disclosed the factum of her having been ravished by respondent on the date of incident, but yet learned Court below while ignoring the statements made by victim/prosecutrix under and 164 Cr.PC proceeded to discharge the accused on flimsy grounds. Mr. Kahol contended that at the time of framing of charges, learned Court below was not required to sift the entire evidence, rather it was only required to infer prima facie case, if any, against respondent. Mr. Kahol submitted that since bare perusal of the statements of victim/prosecutrix recorded under and 164 of Cr.PC indicates factum of her being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, there was no occasion, if any, for learned trial Court to discharge the respondent for his having committed offenses punishable under Sections 376, 342, 382, 506 & 323 of IPC.

4. To the contrary, Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent while making this Court peruse statements of victim/prosecutrix recorded under Sections 154 & 164 of Cr.PC vehemently argued that no case much less under Section 376 of IPC is made out against the respondent and no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below while discharging respondent, who has been otherwise falsely implicated.

5. Mr. Digvijay Singh stated that if the statements of victim/ prosecutrix recorded under Section 154 is perused juxtaposing her statement U/S 164 Cr.PC, there are material contradictions, which clearly suggest that the victim/prosecutrix, with a view to harass respondent, concocted a false story. While referring to two supplementary statements given by the victim/prosecutrix, Mr. Digvijay, stated that at one point of time, allegation of theft/snatching of gold ornaments was levelled against the re