Munmun Kaur
Published On: February 07, 2022 at 11:49 IST
The Supreme Court has observed that discrepancies between the First Information Report (FIR) and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of the Trial.
A Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari on hearing the matter observed “Discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the CrPC may be a defence. However, the discrepancies cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of Trial.”
The facts of the case were that a Charge Sheet was filed implicating the Accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 354 and 376 as well as Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). It was alleged that he sexually abused the Prosecutrix.
Earlier, the High Court of Allahabad had dismissed the Revision Petition of the Accused against the Order of the Trial Court dismissing his Revision Petition.
The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner argued that the POCSO Act came into force only on November 14, 2012 and the incident allegedly took place the period prior to the enforcement of the POCSO Act. With regards to this contention, the Apex Court observed, “The Petitioner has not been charged only under the POCSO Act. Even assuming that the petitioner could not have been charged under the POCSO Act, the Petitioner has been charged under various provisions of the IPC which were admittedly in force on the date of the alleged offence.”
Another contention was raised by the Counsel that the FIR did not disclose the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. To which, the Apex Court pointed out that although the FIR does not disclose the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, the statement given by the Prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) made allegations which tantamount to offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
The Apex Court held that there was no infirmity in the Order of the High Court rejecting the Criminal Revisional Application. Therefore, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Also Read: What is POCSO Act, 2012?