The court established that mere suspicion is insufficient for charge framing; only a prima facie case based on the victim's statements justifies proceeding under criminal statutes.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-FTSC, Kendrapara in GR case No.17 of 2020 whereby his application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge was partly allowed.

2. The brief facts, relevant only for deciding the present revision are that an FIR was lodged before IIC, Derabish Police Station on 17.02.2020 by the informant alleging therein that while her daughter was studying at night at home, their neighbour, who is an anti-social, forcibly entered into the room and attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. As the victim shouted, the other family members came to the spot and rescued her. He further stated that the victim is aged about 16 years and that she was preparing for her examination, and that the accused forcibly attempted to commit rape on her by tearing her dress.

Basing on such report, Derabish Police Station Case No. 35 of 2021 was registered under Sections 457 / 376/511 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted also under the aforementioned sections.

3. After appearance, the petitioner-accused filed an application on 15.12.2022 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. praying for discharge from all the alleged offences on the ground that there is no prima facie material to proceed against him. It was specifically stated that necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are not available and therefore, he should be discharged.

4. The Court below was of the view that the ingredients of all the offences except the offence under Section 376 /511 IPC are made out. Further, the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 A of is also made out. As such, vide order dated 19.12.2022, which is impugned, the Court below, while discharging the petitioner from the offences under read with Section 511 of refused to discharge him from the other offences namely, Section 457 of and Section 8 of POCSO Act. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for discharge and also for addition of the offence under -A of , the petitioner has filed the present revision.

5. Heard, Mr. M.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel.

6. Mr. Mohapatra argues that the trial Court committed manifest error in not discharging the petitioner from the offences under Section 457 of IPC and 8 of POCSO Act as also in adding of Section 354 –A of . According to him, the necessary ingredients to constitute the aforementioned offences are entirely lacking and therefore, the petitioner could not have been charged for the said offences.

7. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Additional Standing counsel argues that if the statement of the victim is considered objectively, it would clearly reveal that the ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences are present. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

8. The present Criminal Revision being filed to challenge the order passed by the trial Court under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., it would be proper at the outset to refer to the position of law in this regard. Section 227 reads as follows:

“227: Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused,