At the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to examine in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution to find out sufficiency of the materials to establish the offences alleged against the accused persons.

1. Both the Criminal Revision Applications are directed against the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by Special Judge (POKSO) Churachandpur in Sessions Trial Case No. 1/2015 (arising out of Churachandpur WPS Case No. 2(2) 2015 registered u/s 354/376(C)/506 IPC and also under section 6/8/10/POCSO Act) whereby the learned Special Judge discharged the accused respondent from the accusation. A Criminal Revision Petition No. 19/15 has been registered upon an application filed on behalf of the State whereas Criminal Petition No. 22/15 has been registered when the Court sou motto took cognizance of the matter relating to discharge of the petitioner.

2. Facts giving rise to these applications are that one victim, aged about 15 years submitted a written report to the SP/Churachandpur stating therein that she has been staying in North Eastern Children Home (NECH) since her childhood where she had been brought by the accused respondent, an administrator of the said Home, whom she used to call Dady. It has been alleged that the accused, before outraging her modesty, used to purchase things like clothes, lotion and shampooetc for her. She would accept all these things from the accused as she used to treat him like a father. Sometime in the month of December, 2014 she asked the accused to buy a sleeper for her. Upon it, the accused told her that if she wants a sleeper for her, then she will have to hug him. When she hugged him the accused tried to touch her breast. Later on, the accused asked her to have sex with him. When she said ‘No’ to him, the accused asked her as to whether she does not love his father. The accused always insisted on her to have sex with him. Ultimately she succumbed to his pressure and subjected herself to the lust of the accused. Thereupon the accused went on having sex with her at number of occasions. Subsequently, she started resisting his desire and then the accused told her that one day she would be his wife. The accused went on having sex with her forcibly despite she did not like it.

Further case is that on the other day, she disclosed all these things to her home mates. When the accused came to know about this, he treated her badly and wanted to have sex with her to which she refused. Thereupon the accused told her that she is refusing to have sex with him as she does have boyfriend. According to prosecutrix she had disclosed about the misdeeds of the accused to her boyfriend and inmates of Home who also stated her not to succumb to the pressure of the accused. On such written report, a case was registered as Churachandpur WPS PS Case No. 2 (2)15 u/s 354/376(C)/506 of IPC and also u/s 6/8/10 of the POCSO Act.

3. The matter was taken upfor investigation during which the I.O. got statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC wherein she narrated about the incident as she had disclosed in the written report. She was examined by the Doctor. At the same time the accused was also examined by the Doctor. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted and thereupon court took cognizance of the offence as aforesaid against the accused on 26.6.2015. Much thereafter on 7.8.2015 an oral prayer was made on behalf of the accused for discharging him on the ground that the list of exhibit/documents submitted by the Prosecution do not establish the offences under which cognizance has been taken. Thereupon the Court observed that the accused may file an application u/s 227 of the IPC. At the same time, the Court passed an order for summoning the I.O. to be examined as Court witness. On 10.8.2015 an application u/s 227 of the Cr.PC was filed. The Court, without disposing of the application for discharge, examined the I.O. on the same day as CW-1 and directed the I.O. to produce two Doctors who had examined the victim as well as the accused. On 23.9.2015 both the Doctors were examined as court witnesses and cross examined. Thereupon, on 9.10.2015 the Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the