‘Prima Facie’ Cannot Be a Ritualistic Incantation; Court Says Charges Cannot Be Framed Mechanically Without Identifying material and record placed to support Ingredients of Each Offence.
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the charges and discharged a 20-year-old accused facing offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), POCSO Act, and Juvenile Justice Act, holding that the order framing charges failed to disclose the specific material establishing the prima facie ingredients of the alleged offences.
Justice Farjand Ali observed that at the stage of framing charges, the Court is required to undertake a limited but meaningful scrutiny of the investigation material. While a mini-trial or appreciation of evidence is not permissible.
The Court cannot mechanically translate allegations in a charge-sheet into criminal charges.
Prosecutrix’ Statements Did Not Support Allegations of Force or Sexual Act
The case arose from an FIR registered after the 15-year-old prosecutrix left her home and was subsequently found travelling with the petitioner.
During investigation, the prosecutrix stated that she had known the petitioner for around eight months and communicated with him through Snapchat. She stated that she herself asked him for marriage, voluntarily went to his house and accompanied him in his vehicle.
Court found that the statement before the Magistrate, she stated that the petitioner did not threaten or intimidate her and did not commit any wrong act against her. She also stated that no physical or sexual relationship had taken place.
‘Prima Facie’ Finding Must Have Identifiable Factual Foundation
The Court held that merely recording that a “prima facie case” exists is not enough. The charge order must indicate, at least broadly, what material gives rise to the required presumption or grave suspicion regarding each particular offence.
“Prima facie” satisfaction, the Court observed, cannot be reduced to a ritualistic expression; the exercise of framing charge is a judicial function requiring application of mind to the material on record.
POCSO Charges Also Required Specific Act Constituting Offence
On the POCSO charges, the Court acknowledged that the prosecutrix being below 18 years has statutory significance and that a child’s consent cannot be equated with an adult’s consent.
However, the Court held that the child’s age by itself does not dispense with the requirement of identifying the particular act constituting the offence.
Since the prosecutrix’s statements specifically stated that there was no physical or sexual relationship, the charge order failed to identify independent material from which the ingredients of offences can be inferred.
Kidnapping Charge: No Instances ‘Taking’ or ‘Enticing’
The Court noted that the prosecution was required to show the foundational element of taking or enticing the child out of the lawful guardian’s keeping.
The mere fact that the minor was subsequently found travelling with an adult was not, by itself, sufficient. The prosecutrix’s own version stated that she had asked the petitioner for marriage and voluntarily accompanied him.
Therefore, Court found no material record of “taking” and “enticing”
‘Brief Order Permissible; Mechanical Order Not’
The Court emphasised that a detailed judgment is not required at the stage of framing charge, but the order must demonstrate conscious application of judicial mind.
The Court quashed and set aside the order and discharged the petitioner.