Charges in sexual assault cases can be framed based solely on the victim's statements without internal medical examination compliance.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. The petitioner-accused, by way of this petition, prays for discharge in Sessions Case No. 124/2020, arising out of FIR No. 387/2019, registered at Police Station Mandawali, Delhi, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 328 /376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter "IPC‟], and seeks setting aside of order dated 10.01.2024 [hereafter "impugned order‟] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (RC), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Sessions Court‟] vide which charges have been framed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 328, 376(2)(n), 323, 506(II), 313 of the IPC.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint on 29.11.2019 at the concerned Police Station alleging that on 22.09.2018, the petitioner, who was her colleague at her workplace, had invited her to his residence for a party. Upon arrival, she had found only the petitioner present, who had offered her a cold drink, which she had initially declined but later consumed upon his insistence. According to the prosecutrix, after drinking the same, she had lost consciousness, and when she had regained consciousness, she had found herself unclothed. On confronting the petitioner, he allegedly stated that he had forcefully established physical relations with her. When she objected, he assured her of marriage but also threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would upload her nude photographs and videos on social media. It is further alleged that the petitioner had repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix to physical relations against her will, accompanied by threats and physical assaults whenever she resisted. The prosecutrix has also alleged that she became pregnant on two occasions and that the petitioner, without consulting any doctor, had forcibly administered her medicines to induce miscarriage. She also alleges that the petitioner had threatened to kill her and subjected her to sustained physical and mental torture.

3. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was registered and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter"Cr.P.C.‟] was recorded.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that charges cannot be framed solely on the basis of the FIR and statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. It is urged that there are material discrepancies in these statements. He further submits that even if the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is taken at its face value, the alleged offence of rape is not established in the absence of compliance with Section 164 A of Cr.P.C., which mandates the medical examination of a rape victim. According to him, since the prosecutrix declined to undergo internal medical examination, the statutory requirement stood unfulfilled, which entitles the petitioner to discharge.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State submits that Section 164 A of Cr.P.C. pertains to the medical examination of a rape victim and that the prosecutrix was in fact medically examined, as per law. He submits that her refusal to undergo internal examination does not amount to non-compliance with Section 164 A of Cr.P.C. He further contends that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to assess whether the material on record raises a strong suspicion of the commission of the alleged offence, and is not to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence. Reliance is  placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781, wherein it has been held that in a case of sexual assault, a charge can be framed on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 or 164 of Cr.P.C., and that minor discrepancies therein cannot be a groun