The sufficiency of grounds for framing charge against the accused under Section 376 IPC and the limited scope of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. were the central legal points established in the judgment.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Premkrishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. RK. Umakanta, learned P.P. appearing for the respondents.

2. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the accused namely, Ph. Chaoba Singh, aged about 25 years, S/o Ph. Loken Singh. He filed an application being Cril. Misc. Case No. 61 of 2018 in Sessions Trial (C.A.W) No. 14 of 2018 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the above referred case. The application was resisted by the Public Prosecutor (P.P.) and after having heard the learned counsel for the accused applicant and learned P.P., the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) for Crime Against Women was of the view that after perusal and examining the materials submitted by the prosecution, there was sufficient ground to frame charge against the accused under Section 376 IPC. While doing so, the judge rejected the application filed for discharge stating that the issue raised by the accused can be considered at the time of trial and not at the time of framing charge. Though the reasons have not been in properly recorded by the Court below, the meaning however, appears to be that the ground pleaded for discharge is devoid of merit. Aggrieved by this, present criminal petition is filed.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2015 a written complaint was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of Women Police Station, Imphal East stating that on 09.03.2015 at around 12.30 a.m. the daughter has been raped by unknown person inside the vehicle (4 wheeler) near Silheipung. She was pushed down forcibly after committing the heinous crime and the accused ran away leaving the victim at that spot.

4. That, this juncture this Court is constrained to observe that it is unfortunate that the Police Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station has revealed the name of the victim. The Director General of Police is directed to issue a circular to all officers that disclosure of the name of the victim is a serious offence and it should not be done in future.

5. On the basis of the complaint, witnesses have been examined, medical examination was conducted, material objects were recovered and vehicle was also ceased. After conclusion of the investigation, Charge Sheet No. 7/WPS-IE/2016 was filed on 15.04.2016 and FIR No. 9(03)2015 WPS-IE U/S : 376/417 IPC was filed on 09.03.2015. Several documents were filed along with annexures (Page No. 13-53) before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) for Crime Against Women, Manipur. At the time of framing charge, the said application for discharge was filed by the accused invoking Section 227 of Cr.P.C. against which the present criminal petition was filed.

6. In the present petition filed before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia pleads as follows :

There is no eye witness of the alleged offence. Only 2 (two) in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are alleged to have seen the victim at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the entire investigation is based on conjecture and surmises. The complaint itself is vague and does not give any detail of the accused. On the basis of the vague complaint, charge sheet has been filed. The identification of the accused by the victim was based on the tutoring.

It is further pleaded that there is no statement to corroborate the allegation of crime said to have been committed by the accused. The medical report of the victim and accused does not make out a case for offence under Section 376 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that medical report is in favour of the accused and the exhibit does not show details of the seminal stain, spermatozoa relating to the accused. The learned counsel also relies upon the medical report to show that there is no offence of sexual intercourse in respect of the victim and therefore, the charge against the accused is based on conjecture and surmises. There is no credible evidence. The trial will cause great hardship to the accused and