Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023, being aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chirmiri, District Koriya (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.11/2024, whereby charge was framed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. Brief facts of this case is that on 10/06/2024 at around 03:30 P.M., while the minor victim was playing in front of her house the accused/present applicant took her in the cattle room belonging to one Inderpal in the neighborhood, whereby he undressed her underwear and he was touching the private parts of the minor victim by his hands. Further, when the grandmother of the victim reached there started and shouting, the accused/applicant ran away from the spot. 3. After investigation, police charge sheeted the applicant u/s 363, 366-A, 376-A, 376-B of Indian Penal Code and u/s 6 of the POCSO Act. On 01.10.2024, the charge was framed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Chirmiri, District Koriya(C.G.) u/s 363, 366, 376 (2)(i) of Indian Penal Code and u/s 5 (m) of the POCSO Act, punishable u/s 6 of the POCSO Act, hence, this criminal revision against above framing of charges against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned court below made an error in appreciating the material collected by the police in the charge sheet and wrongly framed charge 376 (2)(i) of Indian Penal Code and u/s 5 (m) of the POCSO Act, punishable u/s 6 of the POCSO Act. He further contended that the hymen of the victim was intact as per the doctor report and there is no external or internal injury found the body of the victim, therefore, charge is not made out against the applicant and the alleged offence against the applicant/accused does not fall within the definition of rape as provided under section 375 of IPC which is punishable U/s 376(2)(i) (section 376 [3]) as per the amendment of the year 2018). The allegations made against the applicant/accused do not form essential ingredient for attracting Section 376(2)(i). The allegations made against the applicant/accused do not form essential ingredient for attracting Section 376(2)(i). He further contended that it is pertinent to mention that Sub Section (2)(i) of the Section 376 of the IPC has been omitted and replaced by section 376 (3) of the IPC. The offence defined under the said section is as:- "[(3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine:" It is further contended that the allegations levelled against the accused/applicant does not form a punishment U/s 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, that reads as under ;- "Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.-(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. 5. It is therefore prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Chirmiri, District Koriya (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.11/2024, so far as charge U/s 376 (2)(i) (Section 376 (3)) of Indian Penal Code and U/s 5 (m) of the POCSO Act is concerned, in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and contended that at the time of incident, age of the victim was about 02 years and 09 months and the applicant wrongfully confined the victim child in a room and further attempted to commit penetrative sexual assault upon the victim by removing her underwear and touching her private parts and in view of the serious nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve any leniency and would lastly contended that the prima facie sufficient materials are available against the accused person which is sufficient to expose him to a thorough trial and prayed that the charge for commission of offence framed against the accused person. 7. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act , 2012 held as under : “10. Punishment for aggravated sexual assault.— Whoever, commits aggravated sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 9. Grandmother of the victim has stated in her police statement that on10.06.2024, at about 03:00 PM, she had gone to Gelhapani market to buy potatoes. At that time, Chandprasad alias Chengta of Garage Dafaai Gelhapani found her granddaughter (victim) in his lap in front of her house. When she returned home from the market, her granddaughter (victim) was not near the house. When she called here and there, a sound came from the goat-tying room of Indrapal, our neighbor. When she went to see, victim’s underwear was open and she was lying on the floor. Chandprasad @ Chengta was inserting his penis into the private parts of her granddaughter. At the same time, she reached there and raised an alarm, then Chandprasad alias Chengta ran away from there. Hearing the noise, her son and daughter-in-law (parents of the victim) and neighbour came and she told them about the incident. She further stated that her granddaughter (victim) was kidnapped from near her house and Chandprasad alias Chengta (accused), knowing her to be a minor, took her to the goat room and did a wrong act. 10.In the present case, charge has been framed against the applicant-Chandra Prasad @ Chengta by the trial Court for committing the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, u/s 6 of the POCSO Act and u/s 363, 366, 376 (2)(i) of IPC. At the time of incident, the victim child was aged about 02 years and 09 months and was residing with her family members. On the day of the incident, minor victim was playing in front of her house the accused/present applicant took her in the cattle room belonging to one Inderpal in the neighborhood, whereby he removed her underwear and he was touching the private parts of the minor victim by his hands. 11. On the day of the incident, minor victim was playing in front of her house the accused/present applicant took her in the cattle room belonging to one Inderpal in the neighborhood, whereby he removed her underwear and he was touching the private parts of the minor victim by his hands. 11. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by the grandmother of the victim, it reveals that had it not been for timely intervention of the grandmother of victim, the victim would have certainly suffered graver harm by the hands of the applicant. The act of applicant has have had a far fetched and irreparable consequences on the life of a minor girl child and her family and thus, no leniency is called for in the matter. 12.So far as the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of Crime No.165/2024 as prayed by accused/applicant is concerned, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of State Versus Bangarappa {2001 (crm) 152, AIR 2001 SC 222 } has held that this Court has pointed out at the stage of framing of charge court should not enter upon a process of evaluating the evidence by deciding its worth or credibility. Limited exercise during this stage is to find out whether materials offered by prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the court to proceed further. 13.Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhawani Bai Versus Ghanshyam & Ors. { (2020) 2 SCC 217 } has held that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the accused is to be seen. 14.This Court also in the matter of Anil Tuteja & others Versus State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 26/10/2021 has held that it is settled principle that at the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. 14.This Court also in the matter of Anil Tuteja & others Versus State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 26/10/2021 has held that it is settled principle that at the time of framing of charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. 15.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and well settled principle of law, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of Crime No.165 of 2024 by the accused- Chandra Prasad @ Chengta cannot be allowed because the record shows that the accused touching the private parts of the minor victim. The trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the accused, as quashing of the proceedings at this stage would amount to stop the trial at the very inception, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not justified. The trial Court has not committed any illegality, any perversity or any jurisdictional error in framing the charge against the applicant/accused. This Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court and there is no any ground to interfere with the order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure A-1) passe by the trial Court. 16.In the result, the instant criminal revision filed by the accused-Chandra Prasad @ Chengta, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.