The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed that discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial.(Hazrat Deen vs State Of Uttar Pradesh)
Facts of the case
The facts giving rise to these proceedings are obnoxious. The prosecutrix is the daughter of the petitioner, only 19 years of age. It was alleged that she had been sexually abused. In the petition, it is stated that the charge sheet was filed implicating the petitioner of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 354 and 376 thereof as also Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act”.
In this special leave petition the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow dismissing the criminal revision application by the petitioner.
The aforesaid criminal revisional application was filed challenging an order passed by the learned Addl. SessionsJudge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bahraich, hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court, dismissing the application of the petitioner for discharge.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner emphatically argued that the POCSO Act came into force only on 14.11.2012. The incident alleged pertain to the period prior to the enforcement of the POCSO Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that the FIR does not disclose offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The court at the very outset noted that the FIR is the initial document and 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 bench taking note of the same remarked, "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. There is no infirmity in the order of the High Court rejecting the criminal revisonal application."
The special leave petition was accordingly dismissed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
