Court Framing Charge Can't Discard Rape Allegation Merely Because It Was Made For First Time In S.164 CrPC Statement: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court held that merely because the allegation of rape was alleged by the prosecutrix for the first time during the statements under Section 164 CrPC, that in itself could not be a reason to discard the same at the stage of framing of charges.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah was hearing a petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge that had framed charges against the petitioner of trespassing, wrongful restraint, causing hurt, outraging woman's modesty as well as rape under IPC.

"In the present case, although the prosecutrix has not specified the incident of rape during her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. however, the incident of the rape has been specified during the course of her examination under Section 164 Cr.P.C...The police also after thorough investigation had found the offence in question to be made out against the accused-petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of “Nahar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 5 SCC 295” while dealing with the similar issue, though at the stage of taking cognizance and in identical circumstances where the accused was not named during the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but was named for the first time by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has held that the entire record is to be seen and simply because the incident was not narrated in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would not absolve the accused-petitioner from the offence in question, if in the subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clear statement has been made with regard to the alleged offence being committed by the accused-petitioner". 

It was the case of the petitioner that there was not a whisper of the allegation of rape in the FIR which was filed based on the statement of the complainant herself. Similarly, even during her statements recorded under Section 161, CrPC, there was no reference with regard to rape.

It was argued that this was a calculated improvement by the prosecutrix during her statements under Section 164, CrPC, and simply based on that statement, the charges could not have been framed by the trial court.

While rejecting the argument of the petitioner, the Court opined that the allegation was fortified by the medical report as well as the statements of other witnesses under Section 161, CrPC, wherein they had stated that the complainant had informed them about the petitioner having committed rape upon her about two months before the other incident of assault took place.

The Court held that just because there was no mention on this offence by the complainant in the FIR or in her statements under Section 161, CrPC, could not be a reason by itself to discard the same at the stage of framing of charges.

“The Courts have to ensure that a balance is drawn between the right of accused to get a fair trial and he be not prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time it is to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law and equal justice is granted to the victims and to the society at large.”

In this background, the Court highlighted that the prosecutrix' allegation of rape made, for the first time during her statements under Section 164, was supported by the statements of other witnesses during their statements under Section 161, CrPC, as well as the medical report.

Accordingly, it was held that in light of the Supreme Court judgment, and based on the prima facie material available on record, the revision petition had to be dismissed.

The court thus upheld the sessions court's order framing charges against the petitioner. 

Title: Sitaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 303

Click Here To Read/Download Order