IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court must carefully consider the sufficiency of grounds to proceed with the trial and interpret the consent of the victim in light of legal provisions and precedents.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned AJC-XV-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 405 of 2022 arising out of S.T. Case No. 111 of 2022, corresponding to Dhurwa P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, whereby the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, no alleged offence is made out against the petitioner. The victim was major and widow lady. She was consenting party and much aware in regard to the consequences of establishing physical relation with any person. The consent was never obtained by playing any fraud for deceiving the victim.

3. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the prosecution case is well corroborated with the testimony of the victim and the alleged offence is made out against the petitioner at the stage of framing charge, the evidence cannot be evaluated. Only the ground to proceed with the trial against the accused is to be taken into consideration.

4. It is settled law that the Court while framing the charge has to take into consideration the allegations made in the FIR and also the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. If from the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence, the Court should decline in allowing the discharge application. At the time of framing charge, the Court cannot appreciate the evidence. The marshaling of the evidence or appraisal of the evidence is not permissible at the time of framing charge. The Court cannot conduct mini trial at the time of framing charge.

5. The prosecution case is that the written information was given by the informant-victim with these allegations that she had married with Dinesh Sahu on 15.10.2012 and her husband died on 18.12.2015. After his death, the younger brother of her husband, namely, Rabindra Mahto, the petitioner herein used to look after her. He began to keep eye on her and assured that he would marry with her and he had been sexually assaulting her for last six years. Twice the victim was conceived each time the child was aborted. The accused had been sexually exploiting her having deceived her on the pretext to marry with her. Thereafter, he refused to marry with the victim-informant and this FIR was lodged.

6. In paragraph No. 2 of the case diary, the restatement of victim was recorded, in which, she corroborated the prosecution story. In paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, the statement of Aarti Devi and Suggi Devi, who were the friends of victim were recorded. Both have also corroborated the prosecution story. In paragraph No. 8 of the case diary, the statement of the Sarita Kumari was recorded, who is the neighbour of victim also corroborated the prosecution story. In paragraph No. 40 of the case diary, the statement of victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, in which, she also reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. As per the medical examination report, the age of victim is shown as 30 years old.

7. From the allegations made in the FIR, which are being corroborated with the testimony of the victim and other witnesses, the Court has to see whether the offence under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused or not. As per the FIR allegations, victim was 30 years old on the date of closing FIR and she was married with one Dinesh Sahu on 15.10.2012 and her husband died on 18.12.2015. It is also alleged that, thereafter, the younger brother of her husband had allured her to marry and continu