Under-17 Girl Rescued With Accused In Kolkata: Orissa HC Upholds Refusal To Discharge Men In POCSO Case

In brief

The question

Whether the Special Court erred in refusing to discharge the petitioners under Section 227 CrPC, particularly in light of the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision, holding that the impugned order disclosed no infirmity or illegality requiring interference.

It also directed

It made no order as to costs and disposed of the pending interlocutory application.

01Facts

The victim’s mother lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioners and others had kidnapped her daughter.

pp. 1–2

Police rescued the victim, recorded her statements, and, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet alleging offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and 109 of the IPC, read with Sections 4(1) and 17 of the POCSO Act.

pp. 1–2

The petitioners sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC. The Special Court rejected the application on 29 January 2026, and the petitioners challenged that order in revision.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.Whether the Special Court erred in refusing to discharge the petitioners under Section 227 CrPC, particularly in light of the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the materials on record disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed to trial against the petitioners.

pp. 4–6

03Law Applied

Under Section 227 CrPC, the court must discharge an accused if consideration of the case record and accompanying documents, and hearing the parties, reveals no sufficient ground to proceed; where there is ground for presuming that the accused committed an offence triable by that court, a charge may be framed.

p. 3

At this stage, the court must not conduct a roving enquiry, assess the probative value of evidence, or weigh it as if conducting a trial. Grave suspicion, rather than mere suspicion, may justify framing a charge.

pp. 5–6

The Court also referred to Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which provides for a presumption in prosecutions for specified POCSO offences, including offences under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9, and their abetment or attempt.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 16 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 401 Section 397 Section 227 Section 164 Section 161

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 363 Section 366 Section 376 Section 109

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4 Section 17 Section 29 Section 3 Section 5 Section 7 Section 9

04Reasoning

The Court held that the petitioners’ reliance on the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement did not warrant discharge: the court at this stage could not evaluate that statement’s probative value, and the Section 164 statement had to be considered alongside the victim’s Section 161 statement and the medical report.

pp. 3–4

Those materials prima facie indicated that the victim was under 17, that petitioner no. 1 had allegedly had physical relations with her, and that the victim and petitioner no. 1 had been rescued together in Kolkata; the record also alleged that petitioner no. 2 assisted petitioner no. 1.

p. 4

The medical report did not rule out sexual intercourse. Considering these materials under the threshold applicable to charge-framing, the Court found no basis to interfere with the refusal to discharge.

pp. 5–6