JUDGMENT :

Heard the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 27.06.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.150 of 2021, arising out of Balumath P.S. Case No.149 of 2021 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Latehar had rejected the discharge application of the petitioner under section 227 of Cr.PC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below has rejected the discharge application of the petitioner without taking into consideration the statement of two independent witnesses, namely, Kaushar Ali and Javed Akhtar who have categorically stated that the dispute between the victim and the petitioner was for salary and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also further submitted that no alleged offence is made out against the petitioner and the learned trial court without taking into consideration the statement of these two independent witnesses have rejected the application of the petitioner under section 227 of Cr.PC.

4. The learned APP and learned counsel for the OP No.2 vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the incident is within the fourwalls of the house. At that time these two witnesses were not present there. The salary dispute, if any, was there, no lady would stake her modesty implicating any person in a false case. From the statement of the witnesses who were present at the time of occurrence, who were the family members of victim and were the natural witnesses keeping in view the time and place of the occurrence. No question of discharging the petitioner arises and the order passed by the court below needs no interference.

5. It is the settled law that while framing the charge the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the FIR and also the evidence collected by the IO during investigation in support of the prosecution case.

6. As per FIR allegations, the victim lodged the FIR with these allegations that accused Rohit Kumar Mandal was doing job at her hotel and on 26.07.2021 her husband had gone out for some work. On the very day in the night at 11:40 pm the accused knocked the door of the house. She alongwith her daughter and mother-in-law were sitting in the courtyard of the house. The 13-14 years old daughter of the informant opened the gate. The accused came inside the house and also took food thereafter her mother-in-law went to sleep in another room. Then the accused Rohit Kumar Mandal came, he set on her thigh and he pushed her. Again he opened his paint and also lifted the shari of the victim in order to commit rape. On raising alarm her mother-in-law and her daughter also attracted there, thereafter the accused fled away.

7. The IO during investigation recorded the restatement of victim who in her statement supported the prosecution story. Kaushaliya Devi is the mother-in-law of victim, she also corroborated the prosecution story. The witness Muskan is the daughter of victim, she also corroborated the prosecution story. Santosh Chourasia is the husband of the victim and he narrated in regard to the occurrence what was told to him by his wife.

8. As per the FIR allegations, the occurrence was of 11:40 of night. Place of occurrence was within the fourwalls house of the victim. At the time of occurrence, the natural witnesses were the mother-in-law and the daughter of victim. Victim and her daughter and mother-in-law all have supported the prosecution version. The husband of the victim also corroborated the prosecution story who had come to know in regard to the occurrence from his wife. So far as the testimony of the independent witness Kaushar Ali and Javed Akhtar are concerned, these two witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence. They are simply the witness in regard to the enmity on the salary issue. As such, on the basis of the statement of these two witnesse