The Supreme Court has observed that an accused cannot seek discharge of a case citing discrepancies between FIR and Section 164 CrPC Statements prior to trial.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K. Maheshwari noted that such discrepancies may be a defence during the trial but cannot be a basis for High Court to excercise jurisdiction under Section- 482 CrPC to quash proceedings.
The petitioner herein challenged Allahabad High Court order dismissing the criminal revision application. The petitioner was aggrieved of an order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), dismissing the application of the petitioner for discharge.
The petitioner being the prime accused has been charged under Section 354 and Section 376 IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Allegedly, he had sexually abused the prosecuterix herein.
The contention of the petitioner was that he was charged under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 while the act came into force only on 14.11.2012. which is post the period of the incident. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that the FIR does not disclose offence under Section 376 of the IPC as well.
The Court noted that the petitioner has not been charged only under the POCSO Act but under other IPC Sections too.
"Even assuming that the petitioner could not have been charged under the POCSO Act, the petitioner has been charged under various provisions of the IPC which were admittedly in force on the date of the alleged offence."
The Court stated that as far as the contention hat the FIR does not disclose offence under Section 376 of the IPC is concerned, it is only the initial document.
"In her statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after the prosecutrix attained majority, she categorically made statements which tantamount to offence under Section 376 of the IPC."
The Court thus concluded:
"Discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the CrPC may be a defence. However, the discrepancies cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial."
Read Order Here:
Picture Source : https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*smR6Qt26fhiJQB5LRfkWPw.jpeg