The Delhi High Court has ruled that a rape victim’s refusal to undergo an internal medical examination is not a valid reason to discharge an accused at the stage of framing charges, especially when her statements provide a prima facie account of the assault. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the framing of charges for rape and other offences against an accused but discharged him of the offence of administering a stupefying substance due to a lack of medical evidence.
The court was hearing a revision petition filed by an accused, Sachindra Priyadarshi, seeking to set aside a trial court order dated January 10, 2024, which had framed charges against him under Sections 328 (causing hurt by means of poison), 376(2)(n) (repeatedly raping the same woman), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506(II) (criminal intimidation), and 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Background of the Case
The case originates from FIR No. 387/2019, registered at Police Station Mandawali, Delhi. The prosecutrix filed a written complaint on November 29, 2019, alleging that on September 22, 2018, the petitioner, her colleague, invited her to a party at his residence. Upon arrival, she found only the petitioner present. He offered her a cold drink which, upon his insistence, she consumed.
According to the complaint, she lost consciousness after consuming the drink and found herself unclothed upon regaining her senses. When she confronted the petitioner, he allegedly admitted to having forceful physical relations with her. He assured her of marriage but also threatened to upload her nude photographs and videos on social media if she disclosed the incident.
The prosecutrix further alleged that the petitioner repeatedly subjected her to non-consensual physical relations, accompanied by threats and physical assaults. She claimed to have become pregnant on two occasions, and that the petitioner forcibly administered medicines to induce miscarriages without any medical consultation.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel argued that charges could not be framed solely based on the FIR and the prosecutrix’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), citing material discrepancies. The primary contention was that the prosecutrix’s refusal to undergo an internal medical examination amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Section 164A of the Cr.P.C., thus entitling the petitioner to a discharge.
The learned APP for the State countered that the prosecutrix was medically examined as required by law and that her refusal for an internal examination did not constitute non-compliance with Section 164A. The State argued that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to assess if there is a “strong suspicion” of an offence, not conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, after perusing the record and hearing arguments, found the petitioner’s primary contention to be “without merit.” Justice Sharma observed that the argument was “contrary to the settled legal principles governing the stage of framing of charge in cases of sexual assault.”
The judgment reiterated the established legal position that a court, while framing charges, is not required to conduct a mini-trial. Citing the Supreme Court in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, the court noted, “All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice…”
On the specific issue of sexual assault cases, the court held that the statement of the prosecutrix is of paramount importance. “In the context of an offence under Section 376 of IPC, it is well-recognised that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., supported by her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., can by itself constitute prima facie material for framing a charge,” the judgment stated.
Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding the medical examination, the court observed that the prosecutrix was indeed medically examined on November 29, 2019. Her refusal for an internal examination was deemed not to materially affect the case at this stage. The court reasoned that since the last alleged incident occurred in July 2019, “an internal examination at that stage would have been of limited evidentiary value.” It concluded that the requirements of Section 164A Cr.P.C. were satisfied and the refusal could not be a ground to discard her statement at the threshold.
The court then examined the charges for each offence:
- Section 328 IPC: The court found “no material, even prima facie” to suggest the administration of a stupefying substance, as the allegation was “unsupported by any medical evidence.” The petitioner was discharged of this offence.
- Sections 376(2)(n), 323, and 506(II) IPC: The charges were upheld, as the prosecutrix had clearly alleged repeated sexual assault, physical assault, and threats to her life and to circulate her private photographs.
- Section 313 IPC: The charge was upheld based on the specific allegation that the accused caused miscarriages by administering medicines without medical consultation. The court noted that whether this can be proven is a matter for trial.
Final Decision
The High Court modified the trial court’s order, discharging the petitioner, Sachindra Priyadarshi, only of the offence under Section 328 of the IPC. The framing of charges for the remaining offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 506(II), and 313 of the IPC was upheld.
The court clarified that its observations are solely for the purpose of deciding the revision petition and shall not affect the merits of the case during the trial.
