The court emphasized that a mere statement by the prosecutrix, though crucial, must inspire confidence, particularly when significant delays exist in reporting alleged offenses.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 - Charge framed under IPC - Petition challenging charge framed against appellant for alleged rape and threats - Court highlights that mere testimony of the prosecutrix is enough for prima facie case, but must inspire confidence due to elapsed time and potential ulterior motives. (Paras 27, 30, 35)

(B) Revisional jurisdiction - High Court's role in evaluating charges - Courts should exercise caution to avoid re-evaluating evidence and deciding guilt at this stage; a prima facie case requires sufficient allegation and support for trial. (Paras 14, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of raping his relative when she was a minor, following prolonged family conflicts. The prosecution's case relies mainly on the statement of the victim made under Section 164 of CrPC. (Paras 3.1, 3.2, 3.5)

Findings of Court:
The court determined that no prima facie case existed against the petitioner based on the circumstances, particularly the long delay in reporting and lack of corroborative evidence. (Paras 34, 35)

Issues: The primary issue concerned the sufficiency of evidence to justify the charges and considerations of delay in filing the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the alleged victim's long silence and lack of supporting evidence diminished the weight of her claims, thereby preventing a valid charge from being sustained. (Paras 30, 36)

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner discharged.

Table of Content
1. challenge to formal charge under crpc. (Para 1 , 2)
2. detailed factual background of allegations. (Para 3)
3. arguments on delay and lack of evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. prosecution counters defense arguments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. scope of high court in revisional jurisdiction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. criteria for framing charges under crpc. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
7. judicial scrutiny of allegations and evidence. (Para 22 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. discharge of petitioner and conclusion of case. (Para 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the order dated 30.09.2022, passed by the learned Trial Court, in SC No. 67/2021 arising out of FIR No. 724/2020, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West, whereby formal charge for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was framed against the petitioner.

2. At the outset, it is noted that the name of the prosecutrix has erroneously not been masked in the case record as well as order dated 06.01.2023, passed by a Cordinate Bench in the matter, wherein an oral request was made to implead Respondent No.2. It is trite law that in sensitive matters as the present one, the name and identity of the victim ought not to be mentioned. Therefore, this Court considers it apposite to direct the Registry to redact the name and identity of the prosecutrix in the entire case record, including the previous order.

3. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:

3.1. On 31.08.2020, FIR No. 724/2020 was registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West for the offences under Sections 376/354/506/323 of the IPC. The petitioner is the younger brother of Respondent No.2’s father. Respondent No.2 along with her mother and three brothers had shifted to the residence of the petitioner in the year 1988, after the death of her father. Respondent No.2 at that time was only 10 years of age. It is alleged that sometimes when there were no other members in the house, the petitioner used to forcefully catch Respondent No.2 on some pretext and take her to the bathroom on the terrace. It is alleged that the petitioner used to rape Respondent No.2 in the bathroom and when she protested, he threatened to kill Respondent No.2’s mother and brothers. Even though Respondent No.2 complained to her mother about the same, however, she allegedly took no action as she had no source of income and was dependant on the petitioner. It is further alleged that on one day, when Respondent No.2 was sleeping in her room, the petitioner took her to his room and raped her there. It is alleged that the petitioner kept raping Respondent No.2 by taking advantage of her circumstances. The petitioner allegedly also administered some drugs to Respondent No.2 and her health allegedly started deteriorating due to the same. Respondent No.2’s mother allegedly scolded the petitioner whereafter he had given beatings to Respondent No.2 and her mother. It is alleged that Respondent No.2’s mother made a complaint to the police, however, the matter was buried after the petitioner apologised. It is further alleged that the petitioner again started raping Respondent No.2 whereafter Respondent No.2 and her family shifted to a separate house. The petitioner allegedly started threatening Respondent No.2 that he will defame her by showing her video to people. The petitioner allegedly also threatened to implicate Respondent No.2’s brothers in a false theft case.

3.2. In her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, Respondent No.2 reiterated the allegations. She stated that the incidents relate back to the year 1988 when she and her family had shifted to the house in Paschim Vihar. She stated that the petitioner used to rape her in the bathroom on the roof. She also stated that he used to give her a medicine and rape her during the day, and he used to threaten h