A trial court must possess sufficient prima facie evidence to sustain charges; contradictions in the victim's statements led to the discharge of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred by the State, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter "Cr.P.C.") seeking setting aside of the order on charge dated 20.09.2023 (hereafter "impugned order") passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, Delhi (hereafter "learned Sessions Court") in Sessions Case No. 306/2020, arising out of FIR No. 362/2020, dated 18.08.2020, registered under Sections 376D/506/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter "IPC") at Police Station Kishan Garh, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as evident from the records and the impugned order, are that the victim in the present case is a national of Uzbekistan and was residing at a rented accommodation with her friends. Allegedly, on 13.08.2020, she was alone in her house when the accused no. 1 and 2, namely Sahil Chopra and Baljeet Singh, had committed rape upon her. Thereafter, they had threatened her not to take any action against them. It is stated that the accused Shokkhnoza Trigarhera @ Shahnoz @ Shahnaj had instigated the other accused persons to commit rape. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the said accused persons for offences under Sections 376D/506/109 of IPC.

3. However, by way of impugned order dated 20.09.2023, the learned Sessions Court discharged all three accused persons in the present case. The conclusion of the learned Sessions Court, as recorded in the impugned order, is set out below:

“Two complete different versions of the prosecutrix in her statements, delay in the FIR, contrary version in the MLC etc. Raised serious doubts over the case of the prosecution. The prosecution miserably failed to reconcile the entirely different statement of the prosecutrix in the FIR and the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the complete denial of any physical or sexual abuse by the prosecutrix in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C add misery to the prosecution case. Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons, no case of grave suspicion is made out and there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against all the accused persons. The accused persons namely Sahil Chopra, Baljeet Singh and Shokkhnoza Trigarhera are accordingly, discharged in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C.”

4. The State, by way of present revision petition, challenges the aforesaid order. The learned APP for the State contends that despite there being incriminating evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court has discharged all the accused persons. He states that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of imagination, presumption, conjectures and surmises. He also argues that the victim had levelled specific allegations in her complaint against the accused persons.

5. During the course of arguments, the learned APP for the State conceded that the victim had not supported her own claim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. He however contended that since the FIR was registered at her instance only, the statements recorded thereafter under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., cannot be considered at this stage of framing of charge.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused persons vehemently argued that there is no infirmity with the impugned order and the learned Sessions Court has correctly appreciated the facts of the case, evidence on record, as well as the statements of the victim herself, and thereafter, discharged the accused persons. Therefore, it is prayed that in view of the settled law on charge and discharge, the present petition ought to be dismissed.

7. This Court has arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and has a