Rape charge discharge upheld for vague allegations, delayed complaint, and lack of corroborative material

Discharge from the offence of rape was upheld because the complaint and Section 164 CrPC statement were vague and lacked specific allegations about acts, dates, or circumstances. The Court also noted substantial delay in lodging the complaint and the absence of medical or other corroborative material supporting the prosecutrix's version. On the investigation record, these deficiencies meant there was no grave suspicion sufficient to justify framing of charge under Section 376 IPC. The revision was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's discharge from the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was justified in the absence of specific allegations and supporting material.

Analysis: The allegations in the complaint and the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were found to be vague and lacking specific details as to the alleged acts, dates, or circumstances. The complaint was lodged after substantial delay, and no medical or other material evidence corroborated the prosecutrix's version. The existence of prior proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was also noted in the factual matrix. On the material collected during investigation, the Court found that the record did not disclose grave suspicion sufficient to justify framing of charge for the offence alleged.

Conclusion: The discharge was upheld and the revision was dismissed.

---