Rajasthan High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the accused challenging the framing of charges under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) based on allegation made for the first time in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) statement, a Single-Judge Bench of Sandeep Shah, J., dismissing the petition held that simply because the allegation of the rape has been alleged for the first time during the course of statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC, it cannot by itself be a reason to discard the same at the stage of framing of charge. The Court observed that balance needs to be created between the rights of the accused and the victim.
Background
An FIR was lodged based on the statement of a complainant alleging that on 07-10-2022, her brother-in-law, accused, along with his wife, forcefully entered her house and assaulted her with a stick and their hands and legs. The complainant stated that the accused assaulted her with the intent to outrage her modesty. She also mentioned that he was angry at her for working as a labourer in other people’s fields and had threatened to kill her on various occasions.
Upon investigation, the police recorded the statements of the complainant, her son, and neighbours, all of whom supported her version of the incident. However, when the victim was examined under Section 164 of the CrPC by the Special Judge, she stated that three months prior to the incident, the accused had raped her. Identical statements were given by neighbours under Section 161 of the CrPC, stating that the victim had informed them two months ago about the alleged incident of rape.
The police subsequently filed a charge-sheet against the accused, holding that offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 341, 354, and 376 of the IPC were made out. The Trial Court, after taking cognizance, proceeded to frame charges, observing that there was no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s statement under Section 164 and that there was sufficient prima facie material. Aggrieved, the accused filed the present revision petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court after perusing through the submissions observed 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 CrPC cannot by itself be a reason to discard the same at the stage of framing of charge.”
The Court further observed that the courts have to ensure a balance between the right of accused to get a fair trial and not be prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence and 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.
The Court considering the decisions in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. CBI, (2020) 2 SCC 768, State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191, Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, (2023) 7 SCC 633, and State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688, and noted that at the stage of framing of charge, the power of weighing and sifting the evidence is limited to assess whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Further, it is settled that when the material placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court would be justified in framing charges and proceeding with the trial. In fact, if based on the material available on record the court forms an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence, it can proceed to frame the charge. However, for the purpose of conviction during trial, the offence alleged must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is also well settled that at the stage of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into. At the same time, the court cannot act as a mere post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution, it is required to apply its judicial mind to the material placed on record before it.
The Court observed that in the present case although the complainant has not specified the incident of rape during her statement under Section 161, however, the incident of the rape has been specified during her examination under Section 164. Not only this, but the stand taken by her was also supported by the statements of other witnesses under Section 161. The police also after thorough investigation had found the offence in question to be made out against the accused. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 5 SCC 295, while dealing with a similar issue held that though at the stage of taking cognizance and in identical circumstances where the accused was not named during the statement under Section 161, but was named for the first time by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164, the entire record is to be seen and simply because the incident was not narrated in the statement under Section 161, would not absolve the accused from the offence in question, if in the subsequent statement under Section 164, clear statement has been made with regard to the alleged offence being committed by the accused.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the allegation of rape, although made for the first time in the statement under Section of the 164 CrPC, cannot be discarded at the stage of framing charges. The Court held that the statement itself, along with the supporting statements of witnesses, constitutes sufficient prima facie material to frame charges.
The Court held that the Trial Court had not committed any error in framing the charges and dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Trial Court’s order.
[Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 964/2023, decided on 27-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: K.L. Thakur and M.S. Panwar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Surendra Bishnoi, PP and Rakesh Kumar Chotia
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
