Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Shah dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner. Upholding charges under Sections 452, 341, 323, 354, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court clarified that the allegation of rape, though introduced for the first time by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could not be disregarded solely for that reason at the stage of framing charges.

The case arose from an FIR lodged on 7 October 2022 on the complaint of a woman who alleged that while she was alone at her residence, her brother-in-law, accompanied by his wife, forcibly entered her home. The complainant stated that the accused struck her with a lathi in the courtyard and that his wife also assaulted her with hands and legs. On hearing her cries, neighbours intervened and separated them.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes U.P. State’s Refusal To Sanction Posts | Holds Selective Regularisation Of Similarly Situated Daily Wagers Violates Equity | Orders Regularisation In Higher Education Services Commission

The complainant further alleged that the accused attempted to outrage her modesty and had frequently threatened her. She asserted that he was angered by her work as a labourer in agricultural fields belonging to others. Following the FIR, police commenced investigation and recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from the complainant, her son and neighbours. Their accounts supported the complainant’s version of assault.

During her subsequent statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant disclosed that the accused had raped her approximately three months before the incident. Statements from witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicated that the complainant had earlier told them about the alleged rape.

On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 354, and 376 IPC. The trial court, upon cognizance, framed charges on the basis of the complainant’s testimony and supporting statements, holding that her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement could not be disbelieved at the stage of framing charges.

The accused challenged the order before the High Court. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements contained no allegation of rape, and the claim surfaced only later in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. It was contended that this amounted to a calculated improvement and that the trial court had mechanically framed charges without judicial application of mind.

The Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant defended the order, submitting that the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement clearly alleged rape and was corroborated by witness testimonies. They maintained that sufficient material was available for framing charges under Section 376 IPC along with other offences, and that the trial court had rightly proceeded on the record.

Justice Sandeep Shah recorded that “simply because the allegation of the rape has been alleged for the first time during the course of statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot by itself be a reason to discard the same at the stage of framing of charge.”

The Court stated that “the Courts have to ensure that a balance is drawn between the right of accused to get a fair trial and he be not prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time it is to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law and equal justice is granted to the victims and to the society at large.”

Examining Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court cited their provisions on discharge and framing of charge. It referred to the judgment in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368, which held that where materials disclose grave suspicion not properly explained, charges may be framed. The Court reproduced the principles governing framing of charges, including that the judge has power to sift and weigh evidence for limited purposes, cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution, and must determine whether a prima facie case exists.

Further reliance was placed on M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI (2020) 2 SCC 768, noting that where evidence, even if accepted at face value, does not establish commission of the offence, discharge may be granted, but where it raises grave suspicion, trial must proceed. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) 11 SCC 191, the Court reiterated that at this stage probative value is not assessed, only prima facie existence of ingredients of the offence.

The judgment also referred to Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023) 7 SCC 633 and State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023) 17 SCC 688, confirming that at the stage of charge, the material produced by the prosecution is to be presumed true, and the defence cannot introduce contrary evidence.

Justice Shah observed: “although the prosecutrix has not specified the incident of rape during her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, the incident of the rape has been specified during the course of her examination under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Not only this, the stand taken by her is supported by the statements of other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.”

He further cited Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 5 SCC 295, where it was held that an accused not named under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but identified for the first time under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could still be proceeded against, as subsequent statements may also be considered for cognizance.

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court | Power of Attorney Holder Cannot Mutate Property After Principal’s Death | Execution of POA Ends Automatically Under Section 201 Contract Act, Mutation Void

It held: “this Court is of the opinion that there was prima facie material available on record before the learned Trial Court to frame the charges for offences punishable under Sections 451, 341, 323, 354 and 376 I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner, based upon the material collected by the police during the course of investigation.”

Justice Shah ordered: “the present Criminal Revision Petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. The order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 02/2023 titled as ‘State of Rajasthan v. Sitaram’ whereby charges have been framed against the accused-petitioner is upheld.”

“Any observation made by this Court while deciding the present revision petition are only prima facie in nature and the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same. The Learned Court shall proceed to determine the outcome of the trial based solely on the material available.”

All pending applications were also disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.L. Thakur, Mr. M.S. Panwar
For the Respondents: Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chotia

Case Title: Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan  
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:37624
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 964/2023
Bench: Justice Sandeep Shah