Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro in S.T. No.220 of 2013 arising out of Chas (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.149 of 2012 instituted under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’), has been rejected.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary to be stated are that at the instance of the informant Kiran Devi, the aforesaid case was instituted with the allegation that on 16.12.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. while she was returning from her duty, the petitioner- Nepal Kumbhakar and one Bishwanath Kumbhakar, who were known to her from before the incidence, came on motorcycle and intercepted and caught hold the informant and came down from motorcycle. Both the above persons with an intention to commit rape thrashed her and torn her dress and threatened not to raise alarm. The accused persons also threatened of dire consequence if she raises alarm but ignoring their threatening she raised alarm whereafter several persons hearing her voice assembled near the place of occurrence. The accused persons thereafter fled away.

3. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet under the aforesaid Sections and accordingly cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where a petition for discharge was filed by the present petitioner but the same was rejected by the court below by the order impugned holding that there is sufficient ground to frame charge against the accused persons.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the order impugned as perverse and bad in law, seriously contended that the court below failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in right perspective and that in different Paragraphs of the case diary it has come during investigation that at the time of alleged occurrence the petitioner was at his work place at Satabdi Project, Barora Area, BCCL and a certificate was also issued by Engineer In-charge and the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the previous enmity between the parties. It was also contended that none of the elements responsible to constitute the offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code is available on record and there is absolutely no evidence to show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged offence but the court below without considering those evidence, rejected the petition for his discharge by the order impugned.

5. Refuting the above submissions, Mr. Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 contended that the court below while rejecting the prayer for discharge of the petitioner rightly held that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner shall be considered during trial and the truthfulness as of such evidence cannot be judged at this stage. It was also submitted that at this stage meticulous examination of the evidences available on record and roving enquiry of the pros and cons is not permissible.

6. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the learned counsels, I feel it necessary to examine the scope of Section 227 of the Code. True it is that at the time of consideration of the application for discharge, the court cannot act as mouth piece of the prosecution or act as post office and may shift the evidence in order to point out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials with a view to find out whether the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleg