IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of considering the victims' testimonies and statements as evidence in determining the addition of charges, and the requirement to allow the accused persons the opportunity to recall the victims for cross-examination in cases involving amended charges.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') have been preferred on behalf of the revisionists/petitioners, assailing order dated 03.11.2023, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (POCSO), North, Rohini District Court, Delhi (`Trial Court') has allowed the application filed by the respondent/State under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., and has consequently directed to frame additional charges against the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the present connected cases are that an FIR No. 978/2014 was registered under Sections 363/354A/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Section 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (`POCSO Act'), at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi on 25.08.2014, on the complaint filed by victim `S', who had alleged that about three months prior to the date of incident, she had gone to attend a marriage in the neighbourhood, where the accused persons had given their mobile numbers to her and had asked her to speak to them. Next day, when she had called them, they had used filthy language with her, after which she did not call them. However, as alleged, they used to call her even at late hours in the night. On 16.08.2014, the victim had received a vulgar message, upon which she had disclosed everything to her cousin sister, who is also the second victim in this case i.e. victim `P', and had also made her read the message which was "Aap Mujhe apne saath sex karne doge mujhe aapke saath sex karna hai". Thereafter, victim `S' had called the accused persons, who had apologized to her and told that they would never message or call her again. The victim `S' and `P' had again called the accused persons at their mobile phone, when the accused persons had requested the victims to meet them in person to apologize. The accused person had assured that they will come alone for meeting. On 24.08.2014, the victim `S' and `P' had gone to meet accused/petitioner Luvjot at Avantika, Sector-5, Rohini and at his request, the victims sat inside his car. Thereafter, he had picked up the co-accused/petitioner Manish Maini and other co-accused from Rithala Road and had driven to City Centre to speak to the victims. While sitting in the car, accused Luv and Vaibhav had misbehaved and had used vulgar language with the victims. They tried to convince the victims to consume beer. When they had refused to consume beer, accused persons asked the victims to stay with them for 3-4 hours and had offered to give them as much money as they wanted. Upon being frightened by the acts of the accused persons, victim `S' had called her mother and had stepped out of the car to narrate the whole story and had requested her mother to reach the spot. Thereafter, the mother and aunt of victim `S' had reached the spot, but the accused persons had fled away. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered on 25.08.2014.

3. The statements of victim `S' and `P' were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, after investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 31.08.2016, against the accused persons under Sections 363/365/354A/506/34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. Charges under Section 354A of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act were framed against all the accused persons vide order dated 07.11.2016 by the learned Trial Court, which reads as under:

"As per the statement of victims, they themselves went with accused persons to know their intent so that they can make a complaint against the accused persons for their indecent behavior. In these facts, charge U/s 363/365 is not made out against the accused persons. There is prima facie ground to proceed against the accused U/s. 354A IPC & 12 POCSO Act. Charge is framed accordingly to which accused persons pleads not guilty and claims trial."

4. The victim `S' and victim `P' were both examined on 27.03.2017, before the learned Trial Court. Witness M i.e. mother of victim `S