ORDER

1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision under section 397/401 of the CrPC being aggrieved by order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge designated for trial of offence under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') in Special Case No. 65/2017, whereby charges of offence punishable under section 4 of the POCSO Act, in alternate, under sections 376 (1) of IPC and section 305 of IPC were framed against the applicant.

2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 14.4.2017, the prosecutrix, who was below 17 years of age at that time, went to the house of Shashikant Patel. Father of the prosecutrix came there in search of her and found her with the applicant Abhishek in objectionable position. He rebuked the prosecutrix by uttering filthy words and asked her to go home. Thereafter, the prosecutrix left for home. Later on, the prosecutrix was found in hanging condition in the upper storey of her house and died due to hanging. The matter was informed to the police. The police registered merg No. 4/2017 under section 174 of the CrPC and during investigation in that merg, it was found that the applicant forcibly committed rape upon her and the prosecutrix was left with no option but to commit suicide. FIR was registered against the applicant at Crime No. 52/2017 for offence punishable under section 376 of IPC and sections 3/4 and 6 of POCSO Act and later on, offence under section 306 of IPC was added. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court. After hearing both the parties, the learned Special Judge framed the charges of offence punishable under section 4 of the POCSO Act, in alternate, under sections 376 (1) of IPC and section 305 of IPC against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the evidence available on record. The applicant has not committed rape upon the prosecutrix. No ingredients of section 107 of IPC is made out in the case on the basis of the evidence collected by the prosecution. The prosecutrix committed suicide when she was caught with the applicant by her father and her father rebuked her for the same. The applicant has not instigated the prosecutrix to commit suicide. No ingredient of abetment was found. When no prima facie evidence is available with the prosecution to establish the case, the applicant is liable to be discharged. However, the learned trial Court, instead of discharging the applicant, framed charges against him, therefore, it is prayed that this revision be accepted and the applicant be discharged from the aforesaid charges by setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the State submits that there is sufficient material available on record for framing of charges against the applicant. The learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charges. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court, hence, the present revision deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused case diary of Crime No. 52/2017 and documents collected by the prosecution during merg enquiry No. 4/2017, it appears that body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. In the post-mortem report, some fluid and clotted blood was found in the hymen. Margins of the hymen were ruptured and torn at 7 O' Clock position, seen mucosa congested ecthymas and congestion seen at the vaginal orifice and opined that torn of hymen was within 24 hours of her death. Doctors opined that before her death, she was under sexual assault. On the direction of FSL officer, doctors after examining the private parts of the deceased, prepared vaginal smear slide and found stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix. Vaginal slide and stained undergarments of the prosecutrix were sent for DNA test. No semen spot was foun