Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI – Appellant
Versus
TOSHIB ALIAS PARITOSH & ORS. – Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 772/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State along with SI Sumeet Poonia
For the Respondents:Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
The court affirmed that in sexual offense cases, if a victim retracts allegations, a strong initial suspicion is necessary before charges can proceed.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 328 and 376 - The petitioner-State appealed against the order discharging all accused from charges of rape and administering drug under IPC - The Court reiterated the principle that at the stage of framing charges, a meticulous evaluation of evidence is not necessary, yet material must disclose a prima facie case; where the victim subsequently retracts allegations, a strong suspicion must exist to proceed with charges; thus, the discharge order was upheld. (Paras 1, 8, 17, 19, 24)
(B) Victim Protection - It emphasizes the integrity of victim compensation frameworks; false allegations harm genuine victims' ability to seek recourse and undermine public trust, necessitating careful scrutiny of false claims to preserve the faith in legal remedies. (Paras 22, 24, 28)
Facts of the case:
The FIR registered for rape alleged coercion by accused but was retracted by the victim under Section 164, leading to the conclusion of insufficient evidence for charges to stand.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, indicating that the material presented did not support a prima facie case necessitating trial.
Issues: The principal question was whether the trial court’s discharge of the accused was justified based on subsequent retraction by the prosecutrix.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that lack of strong suspicion due to clear retraction warranted no trial against the accused, demonstrating that exhaustive scrutiny of allegations is essential for credible prosecution.
Result: Petition dismissed, reaffirming the trial court's discharge of accused.
JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The petitioner-State impugns order dated 31.08.2023 [hereafter „impugned order‟], vide which the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SC-RC), East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in SC No. 370/2023, was pleased to discharge all the accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 328/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟].
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that an FIR came to be registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi, on 21.01.2023, under Sections 328 and 376 IPC, on the complaint of the prosecutrix. She alleged that accused Toshib @ Paritosh had come into contact with her through the nephew of her husband and had promised to arrange employment for her. On the said pretext, she was allegedly called by him on 13.01.2023 to meet near ESI Hospital. From there, she was taken to Noida, Uttar Pradesh, to a flat where two other boys and one lady were present. It was alleged that all three male accused persons committed rape upon her, after which she was dropped near GTB Hospital. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered.
3. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined, wherein she mentioned the date of the incident as 20.01.2023 and named the accused persons as Toshib @ Paritosh, Deepak Kumar, and Atul Kumar. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the said accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 328 and 376 of IPC. However, vide the impugned order, the learned Trial Court discharged all the accused persons of the said offences.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed by the State.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS
5. The learned APP appearing for the State submits that the learned Trial Court erred in discharging the accused persons despite there being sufficient material on record to frame charges against them. It is argued that the prosecutrix had made specific and categorical allegations of gang rape against all the accused persons in her complaint, which could not have been brushed aside at the stage of consideration of charge. It is further contended that the doctor who conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix recorded the history of sexual assault as narrated by her. The prosecutrix was medically examined on the same day, and the presence of multiple bruises on her neck, as reflected in the MLC, prima facie supports her version. It is also argued that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the FSL report was still awaited at the time of passing the impugned order, and that the exhibits, including the bedsheet seized from the place of incident, could have yielded crucial evidence upon forensic examination. The learned APP further submits that there are two versions of the prosecutrix on record – one implicating the accused persons and the other exonerating them. According to the State, the learned Trial Court has selectively relied upon the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that she had physical relations with accused Toshib @ Paritosh with her consent and that no offence had been committed against her, while completely disregarding her initial complaint. It is contended that, as per settled law, including the decision in Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781, discrepancies between the FIR and subsequent statements cannot, by themselves, form the basis for discharge without subjecting the matter to trial. Even if the prosecutrix subsequently gave a statement exonerating the accused persons, the circumstances under which such statement was made were matters requiring appreciation of evidence during trial and not at the stage of framing of charge. It is thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents su
