AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Teles, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Joshi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents. By this revision application, the appellant who is the accused before the Children''s Court in Special Case no.46 of 2010 challenges the order dated 22/11/2010 by which the Children''s Court has ordered framing of the charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 328 and 376 of I.P.C.
Mr. Teles on behalf of the petitioner assailed the order primarily on the following grounds:
I) Offence u/s 376 of I.P.C is not triable by the Children''s Court in as much as it is the case of the prosecution itself that at the time of commission of the offence the prosecutrix was 17 years of age and, as such, she was not a child for the purpose of Section 2(d) of the Children''s Act.
II) The offence u/s 328 of I.P.C is not made out in as much as it is difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix that the accused after administrating stupefying substance to the prosecutrix committed rape on her, more particularly in the absence of any corroboration from any other source.
On behalf of the State, Mr. Joshi, learned Special Public Prosecutor placing reliance upon Sections 30,34 and 35 of the Goa Children''s Act, 2003 submitted that the Children''s Court has jurisdiction to try the offence under Sections 328 of I.P.C and consequently, even if the prosecutrix is not a child under the Children''s Act for the purpose of offence of rape in terms of proviso to Section 2(d) of the Act, the Children''s Court has jurisdiction to try both the offences. According to Mr. Joshi there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge for the offences under Sections 328 and 376 I.P.C.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Admittedly, offence punishable u/s 328 is triable by the Children''s Court. This being the position, the mere fact that the prosecutrix was 17 years of age at the time of commission of the offence would not prevent the Children''s Court from trying the said offence of rape along with offence punishable u/s 328 of I.P.C.
It is well settled by catena of decision of the Apex Court that at the stage of framing of the charge, a Court cannot go into the authenticity of the evidence. If the material collected by the prosecution prima facie discloses an offence, the same is sufficient to frame the charge against the accused. In my opinion, the said test is fully satisfied in the present case. The version of the prosecutrix that the accused administered stupefying substance and thereafter she became unconscious and the accused committed rape on her is prima facie made out.
Therefore, in my opinion, offences punishable under Sections 328 and 376 of I.P.C are prima facie made out against the accused. In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Needless to mention that the observations made above are for the limited purpose of deciding the present revision application which has been filed challenging the impugned order directing framing of charge passed by the trial Court.