$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 + CRL.REV.P. 1351/2024 BABBAN GIRI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhishek Sandillya, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State along with S.I. Paramjeet, P.S.

Ranhola.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (ORAL

1. The petitioners, who are accused in FIR No. 892/2020, registered at Police Station Ranhola, Delhi, are before this Court by way of the present revision petition, assailing the order on charge dated 30.09.2024 [hereafter „the impugned order‟] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SC-RC), West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‘the Trial Court’] vide which charges have been framed against them

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant Ms. SD regarding an CRL.REV.P. 1351/2024 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed incident dated 05.10.2020, which had taken place at about 4:30 PM at her house. As per the complainant, she heard a loud voice outside her main gate and when she had opened it, she had found her neighbors i.e. accused persons herein, standing outside the door of her main gate. It is alleged that when she had asked them as to why they had resorted to such behaviour, the accused Babban Giri had used unparliamentary language and said that they would teach her a lesson today. Thereafter, the accused Babban Giri had inappropriately touched the chest of the complainant and then, he, his daughter and his wife had grabbed the hands of the complainant and dragged her towards their house. The complainant alleged that while she had tried to free herself, the accused persons had physically assaulted her. However, she had managed to escape and come back inside her house and had immediately locked the door. The complainant was medically examined at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi. On her complaint, the present FIR was registered initially for offences under Sections 323/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘IPC’].

3. The statement of complainant was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟], wherein she reiterated her allegations, and further alleged that at the time of incident, the accused persons had abused her, and accused Babban Giri had also repeatedly inserted his finger in the complainant‟s private parts, and that her clothes had been torn during the said incident.

CRL.REV.P. 1351/2024 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in this case for offences punishable under Sections 323/354/376D/ 506/34 of the IPC. By way of the impugned order, the learned Trial Court was pleased to frame charge against the petitioners herein, for the following offences:

I. Charge under Sections 323/354/354B/376D/509/506(II)/34 of IPC – against Babban Giri (petitioner no. 1)

II. Charge under Sections 323/341/376D/506(II)/34 of IPC –

against Manju Devi and Roshni Giri (petitioner nos. 2 and 3)

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assails the impugned order on several grounds. First, he argues that the learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the medical evidence which specifically records that no fresh injuries were found on the body of the complainant, which raises doubts about the veracity of the allegations. Second, he argues that the clothes worn by the complainant at the time of the alleged incident were handed over to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) after a lapse of four years. Third, he contends that there are discrepancies and improvements made by the complainant in her complaint given to the police initially and her statement before the learned Magistrate. Fourth, the learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court to the fact that the seizure memo was prepared three days after the alleged incident. Fifth,