Cr. Rev. No.465/2007 19.09.2011
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and
learned counsel for the State.
By the impugned order, the trial Court has found, on
the basis of evidence of the victim and her husband
recorded by it, that a prima facie case under Section
376(1) of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989 is also made out, and has accordingly framed
additional charges. The trial Court has also, by the same
order allowed the request of the accused of further cross-
examine the victim and her husband.
The record shows that the victim was examined on
oath before the trial court and she stated that she had
been raped. A detailed cross-examination was conducted
by the accused side in which the accused could not elicit
much. Similarly, the husband of the victim also testified in
his statement on oath before the trial Court about the rape.
He was also cross-examined at length by the accused but
nothing could be brought out to doubt the witness.
If the trial Court has come to a prima facie conclusion
on the basis of this evidence, which could not be
demolished in the cross-examination, that a case under
Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989 is also made out and has accordingly framed an
additional charges, the revisional Court cannot interfere
because there is no illegality and the scope of revision
cannot be enlarged to the level of appeal. Accordingly, the
revision is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial
Court forthwith.
(Sushil Harkauli)
Acting Chief Justice
snb/-/AK