Govind Purviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6172 MP

                                                                      1
                                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                                    BEFORE
                                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY
                                                             ON THE 26th OF APRIL, 2022

                                                       CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1439 of 2022

                                           Between:-
                                           GOVIND PURVIYA S/O SHRI CHARAN SINGH
                                           PURVIYA , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                           BUSINESS BEHIND RNA SCHOOL SADAR WARD
                                           PIPARIYA DIST. HOSHANGABAD MP (MADHYA
                                           PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....APPLICANT
                                           (BY SHRI VISHAL KUMAR NAMDEO, ADVOCATE)

                                           AND

                                   1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                           POLICE STATION PIPARIYA DIST. HOSHANGABAD
                                           MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.      VICTIM X W/O NOT MENTION NOT MENTION
                                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                                           (BY SHRI AKHILENDRA SINGH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                         Th is revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                   following:
                                                                       ORDER

This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 11/03/2022 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No.35/2019 whereby learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2((F) & 506 of the IPC.

Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this criminal revision are that on 31.10.2018 prosecutrix wife of co-accused Virendra Purviya lodged a report at Police Station Pipariya District Hoshangabad averring that she married co-accused Virendra on 05/03/2018. After marriage, she stayed at her

Signature Not Verified matrimonial house. Her husband went to Pune on 01/05/2018. Thereafter on SAN

Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH 03.05.2018 when she was sleeping in her room in her matrimonial house, at around Date: 2022.04.27 17:07:04 IST

01:00 PM someone knocked at the door of his room. When she opened the door,

it was her brother-in-law (Jeth) applicant Govind Purviya, who came inside her room and bolted the door of the room from inside and thereafter on the point of a knife he committed rape with her. The next day in the morning, she told her mother-in-law Siyabai, sister-in-law Saraswati, father-in-law Vishal Purviya, about

the incident, her mother-in-law Siyabai said that they would remonstrate him and asked her not to tell anyone about the incident. Her mother-in-law Siyabai also took her mobile. Two-three days after the incident, she told her husband about the incident, then her husband said that it was okay and that it would have happened since applicant Govind’s wife had died, and also asked her to allow him to do whatever he wanted whenever he came to her room. It is further averred that on 08.05.2018 at about 12 PM in the night, again co-accused Govind Purviya came to her room and forcibly made physical relation with her. On the next day, she again narrated the incident to her mother-in-law Siyabai. She then asked her to let him do so otherwise she would be killed like her sister-in-law (jethani). It is further averred that she did not tell anything to anybody out of fear. On 19.05.2018, she returned to her parental home situated at Village Bhatti which comes under the Police Station Sohagpur. On 30.10.2018, when her parents asked her the reason for not going back to her matrimonial home, then she narrated the whole incident to her parents and other relatives. On that, police registered Crime No.409/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n), 376 (2)(f), 506 of the IPC against applicant Govind Purviya and investigated the matter. During the investigation, police recorded the statements of the prosecutrix, her brothers Dharmendra, Jitendra, mother Geeta Bai, father Kamlesh and maternal uncle Arvind and also implicated the co-accused Virendra in the crime. After investigation police filed charge sheet against applicant Govind Purviya and co-accused Virendra Purviya before the JMFC, Pipariya, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. On that charge sheet S.T. No.35/2019 was registered. During the trial of the case learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Hoshangabad vide order dated 11/03/2022 framed charge against the applicant/accused for the offence punishable Signature Not Verified SAN under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(F) & 506 of the IPC. Being aggrieved from that Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2022.04.27 17:07:04 IST order applicant filed this Criminal Revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the F.I.R. no offence under Section 376 (2)(f) of IPC is made out against the applicant because the statement of prosecutrix do not corroborate by her medical examination report. The alleged offence said to have committed in the month of may 2018 while prosecutrix lodged the report on 30/10/2018 there is no plausible explanation regarding delay in lodging FIR. Even applicant after lodging the F.I.R. entered into compromise with her husband co-accused Virendra which clearly shows that prosecutrix lodged false report against the applicant. Learned trial court without considering these facts wrongly framed charge against the applicant. So order be

quashed and applicant be discharged.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer. This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Hon'ble apex court in his judgment passed in Hem Chand Vs. St. of Jharkhand reported in (2008) 5 SCC 113 has held that at the stage of framing of charge, Court exercises a limited jurisdiction. It has to see whether prima facie case has been made out or not, concerned of the Court should be to see whether the case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation. It would ordinarily not consider whether accused would be able to establish his defence if any. In Bharat Parikh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 10 SCC 109 also held while framing charge the trial Court can only look into the materials produced by the prosecution while giving an opportunity to the accused to show that the said materials were insufficient for the purpose of framing charge. At the stage of framing of charge, the submissions on behalf of the accused have to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency in Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403 held at the stage of framing of charge-Material brought on record has to be accepted true. In-State Of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2003 SC 1512 Hon'ble apex court considered the matter in detail and held that at the stage Signature Not Verified SAN of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be considered. In the Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2022.04.27 17:07:04 IST matter of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

another, (2013) 11 SCC 476 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while reiterating the law laid down in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), have clearly held that at the time of framing charge, the accused is entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by the prosecution, he is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the Court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted.

Which shows that at the time of framing of a charge what the trial court is required to, and can, consider only the police report referred to under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the documents sent with it. For framing of charge strong suspicion about the commission of the offence and accused's involvement of offence is sufficient. On merits, Materials/ documents filed by accused can not be considered. The material produced by prosecution alone is to be considered. Roving inquiry and mini-trial is not permissible. Defence of accused is not relevant. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. Accused is competent to make his submissions only on the material supplied by the prosecution.

In this case, in the FIR it is clearly mentioned that the applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix which also corroborated from her case diary statement. At this stage this Court cannot ascertain the veracity of the statement of prosecutrix by evaluating it on merits. Only on the basis that the alleged offence said to have committed in the month of may 2018 while prosecutrix lodged the report on 30/10/2018, at this stage it can not be said that FIR is false. From the charge sheet prima facie offence under Sections 376 & 506 of the IPC is clearly made. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial court did not commit any mistake in framing charges against the applicant.

Hence, the revision filed by the applicant has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) Signature Not Verified SAN JUDGE VS Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2022.04.27 17:07:04 IST