The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur on 27 August 2025 dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Sitaram, a 40-year-old resident of Bikaner district. He had challenged the trial court's decision to frame charges of rape, assault, and house trespass against him. Justice Sandeep Shah, after reserving the order on 18 August, held that there was sufficient material for the trial to proceed.
Background
The case stems from an FIR lodged by the complainant, identified as S, who alleged that on 7 October 2022, Sitaram - her brother-in-law - entered her house with his wife Gayatri and assaulted her. According to the FIR, Sitaram used a wooden stick while Gayatri kicked and punched her. Neighbours rushed in and separated them.
The complainant later disclosed in her statement before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that Sitaram had raped her three months prior to the incident. This revelation, missing from her initial FIR and police statement, became a central issue in the defense’s argument.
Court's Observations
The petitioner's counsel argued that the rape charge was a later
'calculated improvement,' stressing that neither the FIR nor initial statements under Section 161 CrPC contained any mention of sexual assault. They accused the trial court of acting as a 'mouthpiece of the prosecution.'
On the other side, the prosecution, supported by the complainant’s counsel, countered that the Section 164 statement was clear and supported by testimonies of neighbours. They insisted the trial court was right to frame charges.
Justice Shah carefully weighed the matter. He noted,
"Simply because the allegation of rape was raised for the first time under Section 164 CrPC cannot by itself be a reason to discard the same at the stage of framing of charge."
The Judge emphasized that at this stage, the court only needs to see whether there is prima facie material, not whether the case will end in conviction.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Allows Kamla Devi's Plea, Condones 403-Day Delay in Appeal Filing
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, he explained that a court at the charge stage 'is not expected to conduct a mini-trial' but must apply judicial mind to see if grave suspicion exists.
Decision
In his final order, Justice Shah concluded that the evidence, including the complainant's later statement and supporting witnesses, was enough to justify charges.
The court said:
"There was prima facie material available on record before the trial court to frame charges under Sections 452, 341, 323, 354 and 376 IPC against the accused-petitioner."
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court's order dated 19 July 2023 in State of Rajasthan v. Sitaram. The Judge clarified that his observations were only prima facie and would not prejudice the trial's outcome.
With this, the matter now returns to the trial court in Bikaner for full proceedings.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Sitaram
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 964/2023
Date of Decision: 27 August 2025
