Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 1460
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.K. Sahoo., J.
MANGAYA PASPUREDDY @ P.MANGAYA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - RESPONDENT
CRLREV No.10 of 2017
Decided On : 06-03-2017
Contradictions in the victim's statements do not automatically invalidate the accusation under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Contradictions - Framing of Charge under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code - The court held that the contradictions in the victim's statements recorded under different sections of the Cr.P.C. do not falsify the accusation under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, the order of framing of charge under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of framing of charge under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that the victim's statements did not support the commission of rape.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contradictions in the victim's statements do not warrant quashing the order of framing of charge under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issue was whether the contradictions in the victim's statements recorded under different sections of the Cr.P.C. would falsify the accusation under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contradictions in the victim's statements do not necessarily falsify the accusation under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and that this issue can be adjudicated at the time of trial.
Final Decision: The revision petition challenging the order of framing of charge under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order of framing of charge under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi in S.T. Case No.21 of 2015 that the victim who is the informant in the case has neither stated about the commission of rape on her by the petitioner in the first information report nor in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and she has stated only about the attempt made by the petitioner on her to commit rape but she has stated about the commission of rape only in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the certified copy of the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim which is taken on record. He further submitted that there are no sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioner under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Whether the contradictions appearing in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the narration of events in the F.I.R. and the statement recorded by police will falsify the accusation under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or not can be adjudicated at the time of trial, on which I am not expressing any opinion but for that, I am of the view that the order of framing of charge under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed.
4. Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
Final Result : Dismissed
