Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. These three petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 5.6.2006 passed by Presiding Officer, F.T.C. 1st, West Champaran, Bettiah in Session Trial No.376/03 whereby the learned court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for their discharge. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from the allegations made in the complaint as also the statements of the complainant on solemn affirmation a mere case of offence under Sections 354/511 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and not under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. since there was only use of criminal force on the woman with intent to outrage her modesty and not one of them made any attempt to rape. 4. According to the complainant in her complaint petition petitioner no.1 took her to one room where petitioner nos. 2 and 3, both doctors, were present and she was made to lay down and petitioner no.1 is alleged to have molested her breast and given out that if you give pleasure to the two doctors all your ailments will be cured and immediately thereafter petitioner nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of the breast of the complainant and attempted to commit rape. It is also alleged that on halla being raised by her the witnesses arrived and saved the situation. In the statement on S,A. the complainant has stated that she had gone to the clinic of Dr. Kazim and was sitting on the Verandah wherefrom she was taken to a room and was made to lay down and as soon as she lay down Motiur Rahman, i.e. petitioner no.1, caught hold of her breast and thereafter all the three together caught hold of her breasts and as she raised halla the witnesses arrived and saved the situation. 5. The learned court below in the impugned order has taken note of the averments in the complaint petition as also the statement of the complainant on S.A. and the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant at the enquiry and on consideration of the same he came to the conclusion that offences under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. had been made out. 6. 6. At the stage of framing of charge the court is not required to examine and weigh the evidence meticulously as is done at the stage of a full-fledged trial to find whether on the materials placed the trial will end in conviction or otherwise. At this stage a mere suspicion is sufficient for the court to frame charges. I am supported in my view by the decision of the case of the State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2018. 7. I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.