Summary
A young woman gave birth in a hospital and then took her own life there. Her father reported that she had conceived through the accused. The Special Judge framed charges under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of POCSO, relying on material suggesting she was a minor when the relationship began. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in revision discharged the accused. It relied instead on delay in lodging the FIR. The Court held that at the stage of charge the prosecution material must be taken at face value, and revisional interference is limited to patent errors. Discharging a rape accused for delay in the FIR was perverse, and age is for the trial court to decide on evidence. The appeal was allowed and the trial directed to proceed on the charges framed.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, in revision under Section 397 CrPC, could discharge an accused charged with rape and POCSO offences on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR.
- What is the scope of revisional interference with an order framing charge.
Provisions considered
- Sections 397 and 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Revision corrects only patent errors of law, jurisdiction or perversity. At the charge stage the material is accepted as true to see whether a prima facie case exists, so the High Court could not weigh evidence or discharge on delay. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28)
- Section 376 IPC; Sections 5 and 6 POCSO, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The charges framed on these provisions were restored. Whether the deceased was a minor when the offence occurred is to be decided by the trial court on evidence. (¶¶ 13, 28, 31)
Held
- When asked to quash a charge, the court asks whether the prosecution material, if believed, would constitute the offence. Its truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability are for trial. Interference with a framed charge is warranted only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process, and a strong suspicion suffices to frame a charge. (¶¶ 21, 22, 25, 26, 27)
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC exists to set right patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law, or perversity. It is not to be exercised routinely, and is all the more limited against an order framing charge. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The High Court recorded arguments on the deceased's age but made no finding on it. It discharged the accused on the basis of delay in lodging the FIR, a ground not even argued, and treated the parents' account as doubtful. That premature assessment of evidence was perverse. The deceased's age at the relevant time is for the trial court to determine on evidence. (¶¶ 19, 20, 28, 30)
- The State, as custodian of society's interest in criminal matters, should itself have challenged the illegal discharge rather than leave it to the deceased's father. The Court noted with concern that the refusal to frame a charge of abetment of suicide had gone unchallenged, but made no further comment on it. (¶ 29)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's discharge order is set aside and the trial court is to proceed with trial on the charges framed, its observations being only prima facie.