Honble SAXENA, J.–Heard. (2). Perused the impugned order dated 6.8.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereby she, after hearing the parties and perusing the challan papers and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, held that there exists sufficient ground to frame charge against the accused petitioner Smt. Sona Kanwar, for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 120B IPC. The contention of Shri Anup Dhand is that there is no evidence against the petitioner to connect her with the crime. On the other hand, Smt. Geeta Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 28.5.1996, has stated that Smt. Sona had left for Surat on 14.5.1996. Shri Dhand has asserted that the accused petitioner had submitted before the learned trial Judge the invitation card of the marriage of Nirmal with Ku. Sushma, which was to be held on 18.5.1996 at Ahmedabad and another invitation of the marriage of Nirmal with Sushma which was to be solemnised on 11.5.1996, as also the railway tickets, to prima facie show that on 17.5.1996 the accused petitioner was not present in Laxmangarh, but the learned trial Judge committed gross error in not considering those documents at the time of hearing arguments for framing the charge. (3). On the other hand Shri Goyal, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently submitted that the learned trial Judge has given detailed reasons for framing the charge against the petitioner and that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner could not be considered at the stage of framing of charge. (4). I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the record of the trial court, including the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. Prosecutrix Ku. Tulsi in her statement dated 28.5.1996 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also in her statement dated 6.6.1996 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has stated that accused Manoj Kumar used to call her through the accused petitioner Smt. Sona and on 13.5.1996 Smt. Sona took her in the temple of Rani Sati Dadi where Manoj Kumar asked her to marry with him, but she declined and said that her marriage has already been fixed with some otherperson. On that, Manoj Kumar threatened that he will kill her as also her family mem- bers. The prosecutrix Ku. On that, Manoj Kumar threatened that he will kill her as also her family mem- bers. The prosecutrix Ku. Tulsi further stated that she asked Manoj Kumar to return her two letters which she had written to him but the later did not return those letters. Again on 17.5.1996 she was called through Smt. Sona (accused petitioner) in the temple of Dakania, from where on the pretext of giving those letters she was abducted to Sikar and other places and rape was also committed by Manoj Kumar. Smt. Geeta Devi in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has also stated that Smt. Sona had taken Tulsi to the temple. However, she stated that on 14.5.1996 Smt. Sona had gone to Surat. The railway tickets filed by the petitioner, are not reservation tickets and her name does not find mention therein. Moreover, simplyon the basis of the marriage card of Nirmal with Ku. Sushma, without enquiry it can- not be held at the stage of framing of charge that the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner is reliable or trustworthy. (5). At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. the court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging out therefrom taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, shift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors. (1)). (6). In the instant case, in my considered opinion, the learned Judge has given valid reasons for framing the charge against the accused petitioner and she has not committed any material irregularity or illegality or error of jurisdiction. (State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors. (1)). (6). In the instant case, in my considered opinion, the learned Judge has given valid reasons for framing the charge against the accused petitioner and she has not committed any material irregularity or illegality or error of jurisdiction. In such circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any force and substance. The record of the trial court be sent back.