Complaint trial charge stage requires evidence warranting conviction; vague rape allegations cannot sustain a Section 376 charge.

In a complaint-based warrant trial, discharge is required unless the pre-charge evidence, if unrebutted, would justify conviction; mere prima facie suspicion is not enough. For an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the allegations must disclose the essential ingredients of rape, including specific material showing sexual intercourse or penetration. Vague references to lack of contraception or refusal to have intercourse were treated as insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The discussion also distinguishes earlier authority involving a police case and a proven rape conviction, which was not treated as comparable to a complaint case at the charge stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order setting aside committal and remanding the matter was correct, and whether the material disclosed a prima facie case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code so as to warrant framing of charge in a complaint case governed by Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: In a warrant trial instituted on a complaint, discharge is required unless the evidence recorded at the pre-charge stage is such that, if unrebutted, it would warrant conviction. Mere prima facie suspicion is insufficient. The allegations relied upon did not contain any specific averment of sexual intercourse or penetration, which is an essential ingredient of the offence of rape. The references to alleged non-use of contraception or refusal to indulge in intercourse were held too vague to establish the commission of an offence under Section 376. The earlier decision relied upon was found distinguishable on facts, as it arose from a police case and involved a proven conviction for rape, unlike the present complaint case.

Conclusion: No prima facie offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, and the order discharging the accused and remanding the matter for trial was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed and the respondent succeeded in sustaining the order of the Sessions Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint-based warrant trial, charge can be framed only when the evidence, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction, and a rape charge cannot rest on vague allegations without specific material showing the essential ingredients of the offence.

---