JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2011, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Tonk, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 & 344 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(XII) & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation that she was ravished by the petitioner. Therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. Yet, still the learned Judge has framed the charge for offence under Section 376 IPC. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied upon the case of Gurmeet Singh Bagga v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 (3) RCC 1367 . He has further contended that the trial judge is not to act as a mere post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence. In order to buttress this contention, he has relied on the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 and on the case of Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2007) 7 SCC 413 . 3. On the other hand, Mr. Paresh Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has described the alleged rape. Therefore, prima facie there is strong evidence against the petitioner. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in framing the charge for offence under Section 376 IPC. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that if there is a strong prima facie case against the offender, the learned trial court would be justified in framing the charge against the offender. In the present case, the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, does level the allegation of rape against the petitioner. What is the weigh to be given to her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has to be decided by the court during the course of trial. In the present case, the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, does level the allegation of rape against the petitioner. What is the weigh to be given to her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has to be decided by the court during the course of trial. Moreover, as her testimony is yet to be recorded, it is too early in the day to hold that merely because in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix does not level any allegation of rape, therefore, the charge for offence under Section 376 IPC should not have been framed. 6. The case of Gurmeet Singh Bagga (supra) was on a totally different footing. In the said case, the issue was totally different. Therefore, the said case does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Similarly, although the case Dilawar Balu Kurane (Supra) has laid down the correct law, but in the present case the learned Judge has framed the charge after shifting through and after considering the broad outline of the prosecution case. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane (Supra) is not applicable to the present case. 7. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******