At the charge stage, only a prima facie case is required; minor delays in reporting sexual offences do not discredit the victim's account.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 04.06.2024 [hereafter "impugned order"] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Trial Court"] vide which charges were framed against the revisionist for offence punishable under Sections 328/376D/354C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter "IPC"], Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 200 [hereafter "IT Act"] read with Section 34 of IPC , Section 67A of IT Act and Section 201/174A of IPC .

2. The brief facts of the case, as per prosecution, are that on 29.09.2018, the victim had been called by one Ankit Jain and the revisionist Vivek Chandela to Twin Tree Hotel, Naraina, Delhi, for the purpose of having a party. On the same day, he had picked up the victim from Subhash Nagar Metro Station and had taken her to the said hotel in his car, where she had been accompanied by another girl, "G". After reaching the said hotel, at about 8:00–9:00 PM, Ankit Jain and the revisionist herein had allegedly forced the victim to consume alcohol. Thereafter, under the influence of alcohol, both Ankit Jain and the revisionist had forcibly established sexual relations with the victim and had also recorded a video of the said act. The victim, in her complaint, had alleged that she had come to know about the said video when both Ankit Jain and the revisionist had threatened to make the said video public. Therefore, on 19.10.2018, the victim had filed a complaint at Police Station Naraina, and the present FIR was registered on 20.10.2018 against co-accused Ankit Jain and the present revisionist Vivek Chandela for offence punishable under Sections 376D/506 of IPC , and the accused persons were arrested.

3. The record reveals that the revisionist herein had absconded and had later been declared a proclaimed offender by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 22.04.2019. After completion of investigation, chargesheet had been filed against the accused persons, and charges had been framed against co-accused Ankit Jain. During the pendency of the trial, the victim had been examined, cross-examined, and discharged by the learned Trial Court. However, later i.e. on 28.07.2022, the revisionist Vivek Chandela was arrested, and the supplementary chargesheet was filed against him.

4. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court was pleased to frame charges against the revisionist for offence punishable under Sections 328/376D/354C of IPC , Section 66E of the IT Act read with Section 34 of IPC , Section 67A of the IT Act, and Sections 201/174A of IPC vide the impugned order dated 04.06.2024. The relevant portion of the impugned order is set out below:

"....Arguments on the point of charge qua accused Vivek Chandela heard. The co-accused has already been charged and has been facing the trial.

As per FIR, both the accused forcibly administered alcohol to the prosecutrix and in the state of her intoxication, she was subjected to sexual intercourse by both the accused. It is further alleged that the accused persons had made obscene video of the prosecutrix. Later on, it was revealed that the obscene video of the prosecutrix was circulated to the public. Further, the accused was declared PO and he did not appear in the court on the date given in the proclamation. During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused had disposed off his mobile phone being used by him at the time of alleged incident.

On the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix and other evidence on record, the court is of the considered view that there is sufficient evidence on record to make out a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 328/376D IPC /Section 66E of Information Techonoly Act, 2000 r/w Section 34 IPC , Section 67A of Information Technology Act/201/174A IPC . Accordingly, charge is framed to which accused Vivek Chandela pleads n