Prima facie test at discharge stage limits scrutiny; corroboration and credibility cannot be finally assessed before trial.

At the discharge and charge-framing stage under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, the court must only assess whether the record, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the offences and a prima facie ground for presuming commission; it must not weigh evidence as at trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court went beyond this limited enquiry by treating the material as unreliable, drawing adverse inferences from delay and the prosecutrixes' conduct, and insisting on independent corroboration before trial. The correct test is prima facie satisfaction, not probable conviction. The discharge was therefore unsustainable and the matter was required to proceed to trial, with the Sessions Court free to consider alteration or amendment of charge in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court exceeded the permissible scope of enquiry at the stage of discharge and framing of charge, and whether the charge could be quashed on the ground that the prosecutrixes' statements required independent corroboration at that stage.

Analysis: At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is required to see whether the material on record, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences and creates a ground for presuming that the accused has committed them. The Court may sift the material only for that limited purpose, but it is not to evaluate the evidence as if it were deciding guilt or innocence after trial. The High Court erred by treating the material as unreliable, by drawing adverse inferences from delay and conduct of the prosecutrixes, and by demanding corroboration before trial. Such matters were not for final assessment at the charge stage, and the High Court also misapplied the test of probable conviction instead of the test of a prima facie case.

Conclusion: The charge could not have been quashed and the accused could not have been discharged on the basis adopted by the High Court; the order of discharge was unsustainable and the matter had to proceed to trial, with the Sessions Court left to consider afresh the question of alteration or amendment of the charge in accordance with law.

---