1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Dhanna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1461/2009) Date of Order :- 05th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 366, 376/511 IPC. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that according to the prosecutrix, three persons come on a tractor and witnessed the commission of the alleged offence. However, their statements have not been recorded by the Police. Moreover, when the accused-petitioner turned the car around, the prosecutrix did not try to flee from the car and continued to sit in the car. This fact clearly proves that no offence under Section 377/511 IPC is made out. Lastly the statement of independent witnesses have not been recorded by the police. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the statement of the prosecutrix. A bare perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix clearly makes out a strong prima facie case against the accused-petitioner. 2 Merely because the three persons who allegedly came on the tractor, merely because their statements have not been recorded, such an omission cannot be fatal to the prosecution. For, the settled position of law is that a statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to make out a case at the initial stage. Moreover, even if the statements of the independent witnesses have not been recorded, it cannot dilute or question the validity and veracity of the prosecutrix's statement. At the time of framing of the charges, the learned trial court is concerned only with the existence of a strong prima facie case against the offender. Therefore, the learned trial court was legally justified in framing the charges against the accused-petitioner. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-