REDACTED vs State Through Govt Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 31.01.2026
Judgment delivered on : 22.05.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 549/2023 & CRL.M.A. 13130/2023
X .....Petitioner
versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
+ CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 & CRL.M.A. 17091/2023, CRL.M.A.
17092/2023, CRL.M.A. 17093/2023
X .....Petitioner
versus
STATE THROUGH GOVT NCT OF DELHI
& ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Gutpa, Ms. Rupali Samuel, Ms.
Aditi Soni, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Mr. H.S.
Mahapatra and Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP For the
State with SI Vivek Kumar, PS GK-1.
Mr. Pradeep Rana and Mr. Inderpreet Singh,
Advs. for R-2in CRL.REV.P. 549/2023.
Mr. Rajal Rai Dua and Mr. Rohan Sharma,
Advs. for R-2 in CRL.REV.P. 704/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 1 of 49

Ms. Shalini Sinha, Ms. Mahika Pant and Mr.
Rajiv Mohan, Advs. for R-3 in CRL.REV.P.
549/2023.
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
1. The present revision petitions have been filed by the
Revisionist/ Complainant, under section under 397 read with 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘ CrPC ’) seeking
setting aside of the order on charge dated 16.02.2023, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter ‘ Ld. ASJ ’) vide which
the co-accused persons namely Mr. Abhinav Malhotra and Ms.
Annanya Singh were discharged and the main accused Mr. Madhav
Bhutani was charged for the offences punishable under Sections
323/341/342/354/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
‘ IPC ’).
QUINESSENTIAL FACETS GERMANE TO THE PRESENT
DISPUTE: -
2. Succinctly stated, the complainant/Prosecutrix, filed a
Complaint on 26.02.2021, at Police Station Greater Kailash -1,
alleging that she had been subjected to sexual assault on 29.12.2020,
at a flat situated in Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, where she had gone
to attend a gathering along with certain acquaintances namely, Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 2 of 49

Madhav Bhutani, Ms. Annanya Singh and Mr. Abhinav Malhotra. The
relevant extract of the complaint is reproduced as under: -
"I am filing the present complaint against Madhav
Bhutani, Abhinav Malhotra and Annanya Singh for
committing rape upon me on 29.12.2020 in furtherance of
their common intention and pre-designed plan. I am
residing at House Number _ __ Sector ___ _ along
with my parents and am pursuing my B.A. Hons in Political
Science final year from _ __SinghSingh------
(University of _____).
Annanya is pursuing her B.A. Hons in Pol Sc. Final
year from the same college and I knew her being my
classmate since our first year. Madhav Bhutani is pursuing
his B.Com final year from the same college and as a
college mate, I also also knew him and had faith in them as
friends. Abhinav is pursuing his higher studies from
Australia and many a times I heard about Abhinav from
Annanya because Abhinav and Annanya are friends but I
never saw Abhinav before the date of horrible incident of
gang rape upon me and I saw him for the first time.
th th
On 28 December 2020, our final year 5 semester
exams were over and Annanya told me that a party among
th
college friends has been organized on 29 December 2020
during the day time around noon and it was also said that
the party shall be held at House xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
New Delhi. Annanya told me to meet her at Moolchand
Metro Station around 12:30 PM. Accordingly, in good faith
I reached Moolchand Station where Annanya had reached
before me. She then told me that Madhav and Abhinav were
coming to pick us. Around 1:00 PM, both Madhav and
Abhinav came in a blue colour Baleno Car and they asked
us to accompany them in the car. There was no occasion or
reason to suspect them (or anything wrong).
We all four reached xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, New Delhi.
One person looked like an attendant and asked if we
wanted to be served. Madhav and Abhinav told him that
nothing was required. TV was on, songs were playing,
Madhav gave me the cold drink and Abhinav gave me
chips. Thereafter, we all started talking and sipping cold
drinks. But later on, I perceived that my cold drink was
laced with some sedative and I started feeling dizziness and
nausea and 1 went to vomit in the washroom where
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 3 of 49

Annanya accompanied me and did not let me lock the door
from inside. When I came back I started weeping and fell
into a semi-conscious state. Suspecting something wrong 1
tried to look for my phone to call or press SOS but my
phone could not be found and later I learnt that it was
taken away by Annanya. Since I was in a semi-conscious
state, feeling somewhat paralysed and unable to stand on
my feet Madhav picked me physically and took me to the
bathroom which was in a bedroom then despite my
resistance he placed me on the bed. I was coming in and
out of consciousness and during these spells of
consciousness 1 noticed that Madhav had pulled my lower
and removed my upper as well. I tried to resist and protect
myself but Madhav taking undue advantage of my
helplessness in semiconscious state, he forcefully
committed rape upon me without my consent and against
my will. As far as I remember I attempted to bite him and
push him away from myself. When I gained full
consciousness, I found myself naked. I saw Madhav and
Abhinav sitting there shirtless and I noticed blood stains on
the bedsheet, acute pain and burning sensation in my
vagina along with pain in my lower abdomen. I also
noticed bruises and abrasions on my breasts and left arm.
Both Abhinav and Madhav threatened me not to tell about
the incident the videos, they had recorded on the phone.
They dropped me at Kailash Colony Metro Station around
6 PM in the evening. I remained under such fear and
trauma as well as of my reputation and social future could
not muster courage to tell anyone about the incident and
was living in the state of constant anxiety, PTSD and
depression. I have now disclosed it to my mother and have
come to report this horrific incident. Kindly FIR be
registered against the accused persons for taking action
and I request that my identity remains protected and
hidden. I plead you to take care of my security as I have
been threatened by the culprits and they conspire and harm
me physically or socially."
3. Hence, on the basis of the above complaint, vide DD No. 54 A,
FIR No. 64/2021 dated 26.02.2021 was registered at Police Station
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 4 of 49

GK-1 for the offences punishable under sections
376D/342/328/506/109/34 of the IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was sent for
her medical examination to AIIMS, which was conducted vide MLC
No. 1906/2021. She denied internal examination stating that the
incident was of 29.12.2020 and thus, no medical evidence was
extracted.
5. The statement of the prosecutrix, under section 164 of the
CrPC, was recorded. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: -
th
“On 28 December 2020 my semester exams got over.
Madhav, who goes to my college is known to me since 2018
through a college society. I felt he was a trustworthy friend.
He planned a get together. My friend Annanya who is
dating Madhav’s best friend Abhinav is also a good friend
so I trusted hanging out with her and Madhav. Madhav sent
th
us the final address for the get together on 28 night at R-
162, Greater Kailash. We were supposed to meet more
people but most of them backed out. On the day of the get
th
together i.e. 29 December, Annanya and I were picked up
by Madhav and Abhinav in a blue Baleno from Moolchand
Metro Station. We reached the venue around 1 PM, there
was an attendant like person who asked if we wanted
anything to be cooked Madhav said no and asked him to
leave. The TV was switched on, we opened chips and
Madhav poured us cold drinks, we were all sipping the
cold drinks. About 15-20 minutes after, I started feeling
dizzy and shaky but could still understand what was
happening, at that time. 1 saw that Madhav was making
some advances so 1 started crying and went to the
washroom. Ananya came with me and didn't let me bolt it
from inside . She asked me to calm down and brought me
back to the room where we were sitting. At this point 1 have
lost a lot of memory and am not sure what happened in
between but the next concrete memory I have is vomiting in
the pot and Madhav was holding me, then he pushed me
on the bed, he was trying to remove my lower. I was trying
to push him and get up but my body felt paralyzed and my
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 5 of 49

head felt unfocused. I remember faintly that he
penetrated me with his penis. 1 was trying to scratch, bite
and push to get him away. The next course of events is
also a blurry memory after which what I clearly
remember is laying completely naked on the bed. The
sheet had blood spots. I had acute pain in my upper
abdomen and vagina. My vagina was still bleeding.
Madhav was shirtless and Abhinav was also in the room
pulling clothes back on. I picked my clothes up from where
they were lying on the floor, where I saw a packet of
condoms lying. I asked where my phone was and where
Annanya was. Abhinav said Annaya took it. My phone,
which I had been asking for all this while, was given to
me by Abhinav, who said Annaya had left . My left arm and
my breasts were completely bruised. 1 asked them what had
happened. Abhinav said, “Kuch nahi, tooneskinipehnihai.
Vaisebhikuchnahidikhega”. When 1 tried to confront them
they said that they had filmed meand that I shouldn't tell
anyone about it “tere par bahut mittiuchlegi”. I rushed
out of the flat. They said wait where should we drop you.
Afraid of them harming me more, I asked to be dropped to
the metro station. They dropped me to Kailash Colony
Metro Station from where I immediately left on a metro
train and went straight to bed once home. My mother asked
me what was wrong but I was too scared to say anything as
I was afraid Madhav would spread my video among our
college peers. Annaya called me a lot of times but 1 was
not in a position to pick up. I was not in my complete senses
and was still in shock something like this had happened to
me. Madhav & Abhinav tried to contact me through Ananya
st nd
and on 1 or 2 January, Madhav threatened me the
videos again on phone. I was undergoing therapy and my
therapist also sensed something was off. My school friend
Poorvi encouraged me to report the incident. I started
dreaming of Madhav threatening me, of my video getting
leaked. 2-3 days back my mother walked in. on me crying
and pressed to know what was wrong and I finally told her
everything. My parents were also in shock and decided to
file a complaint the next day, which was yesterday. 1 do not
have anything to add to the statement. "
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 6 of 49

6. Consequently, the accused persons were arrested, their
disclosure statements were recorded, their medical
examination/potency test was conducted at AIIMS vide MLC Nos.
1911/2021, 1912/2021 and 1910/2021 and all 4 mobile phones were
seized for forensic examination. The accused persons were sent to
Judicial Custody on 27.02.2021.
7. The Site plan was drawn, documents pertaining to the booking
of the GK flat by the accused persons were obtained, however, due to
lack of any CCTV camera no footage could be recovered. The
property attendant, namely Pratiyush Jayal , and the cleaner, Ms.
Pooja , were examined, and their statements under Section 161 of the
CrPC were recorded, who disclosed that she was the person
responsible for cleaning of the bedsheets on the date of the incident
and she did not find any blood stains either on the bed-sheet or on the
mattress.
8. Additionally, an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC
was moved on behalf of accused Annanya, pursuant to which a pen
drive containing photographs, videos, WhatsApp chats, and voice
recordings exchanged between the accused Annanya and the
complainant was placed on record. Supplementary statements of the
prosecutrix and also of her mother were recorded.
9. During investigation, the GK flat was inspected and no blood
stained bed-sheets or mattresses were recovered. The Statement of Mr.
Dhruv Arora under section 161 of the CrPC was recorded who
disclosed that the keys of the flat were handed over to him and since
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 7 of 49

the purchase of the mattresses in October 2020 no new mattresses
have been purchased.
10. The statement of the friend of the prosecutrix, Ms. Amani
Chaudhary was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC stating that
she was the friend of prosecutrix and accused Annanya. The
prosecutrix and the three accused were planning to celebrate and
planning was going on since 10-15 days. They all went on 29.12.2020
and since she was not there, she was not sure as to exactly what had
happened, but she knew that Annanya left early around 6 PM as her
mother was calling. Annanya claimed that she tried to call the
prosecutrix, before leaving but could not reach her number. Madhav
and Abhinav dropped prosecutrix later at some unknown time. After
few days, prosecutrix claimed that she thinks that it was rape because
she said 'NO' repeatedly. She had asked Annanya to go to the police
station and file a complaint, but as Annanya did not see any resistance
from prosecutrix's side, she did not want to say something she was not
certain of. At the end, prosecutrix distanced herself from all three of
them and then filed the complaint against them after 2 months.
11. The statement of another friend of the prosecutrix, Ms. Chetna
Gowara was recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC wherein she
stated that she and Annanya were school friends and accused Annanya
told her on 07.01.2021 that she had gone for a party on 29.10.2020,
but she had to leave early. Annanya told her that everyone had fun at
the party and later that day, they were sharing videos of the day.
However, after few days Annanya informed that the prosecutrix had
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 8 of 49

started saying that she was not sure as to whether whatever happened
in the room with Madhav was consensual or not. Annanya told her that
the prosecutrix did not remember anything clearly. Although,
prosecutrix was not sure, but she told Annanya that it might be rape
and asked Annanya to go with her to the police station as a witness.
Annanya told the prosecutrix that she cannot claim anything as to
whatever happened inside the room between prosecutrix and Madhav,
because she did not see anything, as she was outside the room.
However, after few days, prosecutrix started alleging that Annanya
was also involved. However, Annanya did not feel anything was being
done forcefully, as prosecutrix did not even mention once that
something unpleasant was happening during the party.
12. The Supplementary statement of Mr. Dhruv Arora , owner of
Airbnb Apartment verified that his staff Pratyush Jayal had checked
the apartment, but did not notice any blood stains on any mattress or
bedsheet.
13. On the basis of the WhatsApp chats, voice recordings, screen
shots and other material collected, Chargesheet was filed against
accused Madhav and Abhinav under sections 376D/342/328/506/34 of
the IPC and against Annanya under sections 376D/109/34 of the IPC.
14. Total four supplementary chargesheets were filed. In the First
Supplementary Chargesheet , CDRs of the mobile phones and the
Statement under section 161 of the CrPC of Ms. Purvi was also
recorded. Second Supplementary Chargesheet was filed regarding
CDR/CAF of Madhav, details of Metro Travel and photographs of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 9 of 49

bruises sustained by the prosecutrix on 29.12.2020. Third
Supplementary Chargesheet was filed regarding the purchase of two
packets of condoms by Abhinav on the said date from Apollo
Pharmacy. Fourth Supplementary chargesheet was filed regarding
FSL of the mobile phone of Annanya.
15. Vide the Impugned Order on Charge dated 16.02.2023, the
learned Trial Court, after considering all relevant material placed forth
including the witness testimonies, electronic evidence etc. held that a
f
prima facie case was made out against the main accused Madhav or
offences under Sections 376, 354, 323, 341 and 342 of the IPC and
accordingly directed framing of charges for the said offences, while
discharging him of the offences under Sections 328 and 506 of the
IPC. Insofar as accused Abhinav and Annanya are concerned, the
learned Trial Court held that the material on record did not disclose
grave suspicion regarding their involvement, participation, common
intention, or abetment in the commission of the alleged offences, and
accordingly both were discharged.
16. Aggrieved, the Crl. Rev. P. No. 549/2023 has been filed by the
Prosecutrix/Revisionist, challenging the discharge of accused Abhinav
(Respondent No. 2 therein) under sections
376D/376/342/328/109/506/34 of the IPC and Annanya (Respondent
No. 3 therein) under sections 376D/109 of the IPC, while Crl. Rev. P.
No. 704/2023 has been filed challenging the discharge of the main
accused Madhav (Respondent No. 2 therein) under section
376D/328/506/34 of the IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 10 of 49

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONIST: -
17. The learned Counsel for the Revisionist/Prosecutrix has
submitted that the statement of the Prosecutrix under section 164 of
the CrPC along with the material on record was sufficient to raise a
grave suspicion and to frame the Charge against all the accused
persons for the offences under section 376D/328/506/34.
18. It is submitted that the booking of the Airbnb, GK-1, was in the
name of Abhinav and the bill was also paid by him. Thus, the exact
role of each person in the planning of the event was a subject-matter
of trial and it could not have been concluded by the learned ASJ that
only the Prosecutrix planned the party.
19. It is further submitted that on the date of the incident, just
before picking up the Prosecutrix, Abhinav had also purchased two
packets of condoms and the payment was also made by Abhinav. The
chats between Annanya and Amani dated 29.12.2020 suggest that
these condoms were not for the personal use of Ananya and Abhinav,
which implies that they were purchased for Madhav.
20. It is further submitted that the Prosecutrix has categorically
stated that she felt dizzy and uneasy after consuming the cold drink
administered to her by Madhav and both Abhinav and Annanya were
aware of the prosecutrix’s severely intoxicated state. Despite being
aware of her precarious state, accused Annanya did not only not let the
prosecutrix lock herself in the bathroom, but also abandoned the
prosecutrix, in the company of the accused Madhav and Abhinav.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 11 of 49

21. It is further submitted that admittedly Annanya had taken the
phone of the prosecutrix and thus, she could not contact anyone or
raise alarm or call for help, which proves that Annanya was equally
involved in the criminal act. The learned Trial Court has further
completely ignored the possibility that the downloading of
images/videos, during the incident, could be because of auto-
download feature and does not imply active usage of the phone by the
prosecutrix.
22. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the
prosecutrix has categorically stated that Abhinav was present,
shirtless, in the room where the prosecutrix was naked and
unconscious, and he, along with Madhav, had extended threats
regarding circulation of her videos. The possibility of them deleting
her videos subsequently has also not been considered by the learned
Trial Court.
23. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to
appreciate that Madhav and Abhinav checked-out from the place of
incident at 7:15 PM and therefore, their coming back to the place of
incident, after dropping the Prosecutrix at Kailash Colony metro
station at 6:30 PM, for the purpose of removing and destroying the
incriminating articles/ evidences such as used packet of condoms,
blood stain on the bed-sheet, the intoxicating substance/ sedative/rape
drug, etc. mixed in the cold drink of the Prosecutrix, etc. cannot be
ruled out at the stage of Framing of Charge.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 12 of 49

24. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the WhatsApp chats between the accused persons which
reflect that they were not only anxious about the incident, but were
also persuading the prosecutrix to forget the incident. They have also
deleted several messages/evidence/data from their mobile phones.
25. It is further submitted that the past relationship of the
Prosecutrix with one Sankalp has no nexus with the present case.
26. Hence, it is urged that the learned Trial Court has erred in
undertaking a detailed evaluation of the evidence placed on record by
conducting a mini trial, at the stage of framing of charge, while
ignoring that there was sufficient material to raise a grave suspicion
that all the accused persons had pre-planned the commission of the
offence and the co-accused had actively abetted the crime in
furtherance of their common intention. Thus, it is prayed that the
present petitions be allowed and the impugned order be set-aside.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF ALL ACCUSED PERSONS: -
27. The learned Counsels on behalf of the accused persons have
vehemently argued that the complaint filed by the prosecutrix is false
and the present criminal revision petitions are filed frivolously with a
view to procrastinate the trial in the instant matter.
28. It is contended that the law at the stage of framing of charge is
well settled and the Court is only required to determine whether the
material on record discloses a grave suspicion against the accused. It
is submitted that where two views are possible and the material gives
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 13 of 49

rise merely to suspicion, as opposed to grave suspicion, the accused is
entitled to discharge.
29. It is argued that in the present case, the emotional backdrop is
relevant to understand the sequence of events, the conduct of the
prosecutrix in organizing the party and the alleged motive for falsely
implicating the accused persons.
30. It is submitted that the prosecutrix and the accused Madhav and
Annanya were college friends, while Abhinav was Annanya’s
partner/boyfriend. The WhatsApp chats placed on record reflect that
the prosecutrix was, at the relevant time, undergoing emotional
distress arising out of her relationship with one Sankalp, who, had
been physically involved with another person. Thus, the prosecutrix
engaged in conversations with accused Madhav and herself indicated
inclination for a hookup/casual physical relationship with him, only a
few days before the incident.
31. It is submitted that on 24.12.2020 the prosecutrix herself put an
end to her relationship with Sankalp and then, within 4 minutes of her
break-up, she proposed the get together/party to Madhav. She asked
Madhav and Annanya to make plans for 29.12.2020, created a
WhatsApp group, coordinated with all the accused persons, and
actively participated in finalizing the venue, including approving the
Airbnb accommodation and sharing her identification documents. It is
argued that the choice of a private venue was not imposed by any of
the accused but was a result of the prosecutrix’s own decision-making
and active participation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 14 of 49

32. It is further contended that prosecutrix enjoyed all the activities
on 29.12.2020 and willingly consumed food and drinks, which is
evident from the photos and videos in her own phone.
33. It is further contended that the conduct of the prosecutrix
immediately after the alleged incident is also wholly inconsistent with
the allegations subsequently levelled. Reliance is placed on
contemporaneous WhatsApp chats, including those exchanged in a
group titled “ None of the Business ”, to submit that the prosecutrix,
while communicating freely with the accused persons, did not level
any allegation against accused Abhinav or Ananya or even Madhav
and was rather casually asking for photographs and videos of the
party. In the chats, she also expressed emotions relating to Sankalp,
conveyed feelings of guilt/ emotional distress and stated that whatever
had transpired was only with accused Madhav.
34. It is further contended that the prosecutrix, in her conversations
with her cousin “ Chunnu ”, on the date of the incident and very
proximate to the time of the incident, admitted to having consumed
alcohol voluntarily and referred to only “ kissing ” accused Madhav. It
is submitted that again there was no allegation whatsoever against
Abhinav or Annanya or even Madhav in these conversations. It is also
contented that such contemporaneous admissions negate the
allegations of administration of any intoxicating substance and also
undermine the subsequent version sought to be projected.
35. It is further contended that even otherwise there is no material
on record to support the allegation under Section 328 of the IPC. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 15 of 49

submitted that no intoxicating or stupefying substance was recovered,
no medical evidence exists to support such administration, and the
prosecutrix herself admitted to voluntary consumption of alcohol. The
material on record reveals that the prosecutrix was herself enjoying
drinks with her friends and had willingly consumed alcohol, which is
also evident from photos and videos in her own mobile phone.
36. It is further contended that the prosecutrix remained in
communication with her mother and other persons even on the date of
the alleged incident, including telephonic conversations, yet did not
disclose any alleged sexual assault. It is further submitted that call
detail records and FSL data indicate that the prosecutrix continued to
use her phone, clicked photographs and videos, and engaged in
messaging, including with her psychologist, without raising any alarm
or complaint. It is argued that such conduct is inconsistent with the
prosecution case that she did not have her phone to raise any alarm.
37. It is contended that insofar as Ananya is concerned there is no
allegation that she was present at the time of the alleged sexual assault
or that she participated in any manner therein. The only allegation
pertains to her having taken the phone of the prosecutrix, which was
done to avoid a confrontation with the prosecutrix’s mother while she
was in an inebriated/intoxicated condition. She did not let the
prosecutrix bolt the washroom door only out of concern for her safety
and to avoid the prosecutrix getting locked inside the washroom in an
intoxicated state. It is contended that even assuming the allegation
regarding the phone to be correct, the same does not satisfy the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 16 of 49

ingredients of abetment under Sections 107 or 109 of the IPC. There is
no material to show any instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding
or prior planning on the part of Annanya, rather, the chats disclose that
Annanya was reluctant to even attend the party. It is argued that mere
negligence, or presence does not constitute abetment in the absence of
mens rea .
38. It is contended that insofar as accused Abhinav is concerned, he
is a complete outsider who had no prior acquaintance with the
prosecutrix and was known to her only through Ananya. It is
submitted that there is no allegation of any overt act against him, no
allegation of physical contact, and no material suggesting any
participation in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that even
the prosecutrix, in her communications/chats about 5 days prior to the
lodging of the FIR, expressed uncertainty regarding his involvement.
It is argued that mere presence at the scene, without any overt act or
meeting of minds, cannot attract liability under Sections 34, 109, or
376D of the IPC. It is further submitted that this Hon’ble Court, while
granting bail to Abhinav, had observed that his mere presence, at the
place of the incident, would not prima facie make out a case of gang
rape.
39. It is further contended that the allegation of criminal
intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC is also not borne out from
the record. It is submitted that no photographs or videos, as alleged,
were recovered from any of the devices of the accused persons, and
FSL reports do not indicate the existence of any such material.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 17 of 49

40. It is further contended that the FIR in the present case was
lodged after an inordinate delay of approximately two months from
the date of the alleged incident i.e. 29.12.2020, without any
satisfactory explanation. It is submitted that during this intervening
period, the prosecutrix remained in continuous touch with various
persons, including her family members and acquaintances, yet no
complaint was made. It is further submitted that the record reflects that
she was in consultation with a lawyer prior to lodging the FIR and that
a draft complaint containing variations was found on her device,
which, according to the accused, indicates deliberation, embellishment
and afterthought.
41. It is further contended that the registration of the FIR is
attributable to external influence, particularly that of Sankalp, who,
advised the prosecutrix to initiate legal proceedings against the
accused. It is submitted that the contemporaneous chats reflect that the
prosecutrix was in a state of emotional conflict and that the idea of
initiating criminal proceedings emerged only thereafter, thereby
indicating that the allegations were not spontaneous but evolved over
time and Sankalp was feeding her mind.
42. It is also contended that the prosecutrix had, at a subsequent
stage, requested Annanya to act as a witness against the other accused
persons and, upon her refusal to make statements beyond what she had
witnessed, falsely implicated her in the present case.
43. It is further contended that the State has not challenged the
order on charge passed by the learned Trial Court, and the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 18 of 49

revision has been filed only at the instance of the prosecutrix. This
reinforces the submission that even the prosecution does not find
sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons.
44. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the
present revision petitions be dismissed.
45. I have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties
and have perused the record, including the impugned order on charge
and the material as well as the judgments relied upon by the parties.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
46. The scope of interference by High Courts while exercising
revisional jurisdiction in a challenge to order framing charge/discharge
is well settled. The power ought to be exercised sparingly, in the
interest of justice. It is not open to the Court to misconstrue the
revisional proceedings as an appeal and reappreciate the evidence
unless any glaring perversity is brought to its notice.
47. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI :
(2010) 9 SCC 368 , has culled out the following principles in respect
of the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC while observing that
a prima facie case would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles
emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power
to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 19 of 49

accused has been made out. The test to determine prima
facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the
broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the court,
any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there
cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court
could form an opinion that the accused might have
committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative
value of the material on record cannot be gone into but
before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial
mind on the material placed on record and must be
satisfied that the commission of
offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on
record with a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For
this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to
common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused
and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end
in conviction or acquittal. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 20 of 49

48. The Court, at the stage of framing of charge, is to evaluate the
material only for the purpose of finding out if the facts constitute the
alleged offence, given the ingredients of the offence. Thus, while
framing of charges, the Court ought to look at the limited aspect of
whether, given the material placed before it, there is grave suspicion
against the accused which is not properly explained. It is equally well
settled that where the material gives rise only to a mere suspicion, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the accused is entitled to
discharge.
49. In the aforesaid legal backdrop, it becomes necessary to
examine the nature of allegations and the role attributed to each of the
accused, to determine if the observations of the learned Trial Court
suffer from any illegality or perversity.
50. On the basis of the chargesheet, including the statements of the
prosecutrix, t he allegations against the main accused Madhav can be
summarized as under: -
(a) Madhav, along with co-accused Abhinav and
Annanya, formed a group, sharing a common
intention to sexually assault the prosecutrix
during a college friends’ party, to which she had
been invited.
(b) Madhav administered a cold drink to the
prosecutrix which was laced with a sedative, after
consuming which she began to feel dizzy.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 21 of 49

(c) As the prosecutrix became semi-conscious,
Madhav is stated to have forcibly taken her to a
bedroom from the bathroom and, despite her
resistance, laid her on the bed and forcibly
engaged in sexual intercourse with her without
her consent.
(d) Upon regaining consciousness, the prosecutrix
reportedly noticed bruises and abrasions on her
breasts and left arm and she was not wearing
clothes and was also bleeding.
(e) When she regained consciousness, Madhav and
co-accused Abhinav, both were present, and they
threatened her with dire consequences , including
circulation of videos recorded on a phone, in order
to prevent her from disclosing the incident.
51. T he allegations against the accused Abhinav can be summarized
as under: -
(a) Abhinav, along with co-accused Madhav and
Annanya, formed a group sharing a common
intention to sexually assault the prosecutrix
during a college friends’ party to which she had
been invited.
(b) Before the incident, Abhinav purchased 2
condoms from apollo pharmacy, for Madhav in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 22 of 49

order to facilitate the commission of the offence
of sexual assault.
(c) Abhinav, in conjunction with Madhav (who
provided a cold drink), gave chips to the
prosecutrix , after consuming which she began to
feel dizzy.
(d) Upon regaining consciousness and post sexual
assault by Madhav, the prosecutrix reportedly saw
Abhinav (without his shirt) in the same room
where she was laying naked.
(e) When she enquired about her phone and the
whereabouts of Annanya, Abhinav allegedly
informed her that Annanya had taken the phone
and had already left, and thereafter returned the
phone to her.
(f) Abhinav along with Madhav also threatened the
prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anyone ,
failing which he, along with co-accused Madhav,
would circulate videos recorded on their phone.
52. T he allegations against the accused Annanya can be
summarized as under: -
(a) Annanya, along with the main accused Madhav
and Abhinav, acted in concert to facilitate the
commission of gang rape upon the prosecutrix, or
otherwise intentionally aided in the commission of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 23 of 49

the offence, during a college friends’ party to
which she had been invited.
(b) Annanya organized the party and deceitfully
induced the prosecutrix to attend the same.
(c) When the prosecutrix went to the washroom due
to feeling unwell and vomiting, Annanya
prevented her from locking or bolting the door
from the inside.
(d) When the prosecutrix attempted to locate her
phone to make a call or trigger an SOS, she could
not find it, and later came to know that the phone
had been taken away by accused Annanya.
Framing of charges under Section 376/341/342 and 323 against the
accused Madhav: -
53. From a perusal of the record, it emerges that the allegations of
sexual assault are primarily with respect to the main accused Madhav.
54. Firstly, there are specific allegations that he carried the
prosecutrix from the bathroom to the bedroom and forcefully placed
her upon the bed. Despite her resistance, he wrongfully confined her
to the bedroom of the flat. The same has been reiterated by the
prosecutrix during her WhatsApp chats with the accused Madhav,
when she confronted him and also discussing the incident with her
friend Amani. Hence, the Trial Court found the material sufficient to
prima facie disclose grave suspicion against the accused Madhav for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 24 of 49

wrongfully retraining and confining the prosecutrix in the bedroom of
the GK-1 flat.
55. As regards framing of charge under Section 376 and 323 of the
IPC , it emerges that, the prosecutrix has specifically stated in her
statement under section 164 of the CrPC, that while the accused
attempted to remove her clothing and sexually assault her, she
resisted by trying to push him away, scratch and also bite, but felt
physically immobilized and disoriented, and recalls that he penetrated
her with his penis despite her resistance. During her medical
examination also, she disclosed a history of sexual assault by the
accused Madhav and reiterated the allegations.
56. Additionally, the statements of witnesses, including friends of
Annanya i.e. Amani and Chetna indicate that even Annanya had
acknowledged that the prosecutrix had, shortly after the party,
complained of Madhav sexually assaulting her. Similarly, as per the
statement of Ms. Purvi Goel, childhood friend of the prosecutrix,
prosecutrix had disclosed the incident to her the very next day, stating
that accused Madhav had forcefully established sexual relations with
her without her consent and even the other friend Amani had reached
out to Purvi showing concern for the prosecutrix as she showed
indications of mental and physical trauma and needed immediate
medical assistance.
57. Notably, the prosecutrix’s conversation with Madhav on
the same night i.e. 29.12.2020, reflects her confronting him about the
incident soon after regaining consciousness (asking him if they had
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 25 of 49

sexual intercourse and if it was unprotected) and attempting to process
what had occurred. Even on 31.12.2020, the prosecutrix has again
confronted Madhav and has asked him why he forced himself upon
her when she clearly said “ No ”.
58. Additional group and private chats, specifically with Amani and
Anannya reveal her complaints of bleeding, injuries and bruises
(supported by photographs), and her assertion that she was sexually
assaulted/raped by Madhav, while in a semi-conscious state, despite
her resistance and specifically saying “ NO ” multiple times. The chats,
along with photographs of injuries and communications with Amani
and Purvi demonstrate that they were urging her to seek medical and
psychological help, and also to confront Madhav.
59. Hence, in view of the entire material placed on record and
without giving any conclusive findings on the veracity of the
allegations as the same would be tested during trial, the learned Trial
Court directed framing of charges for the offences punishable under
sections 376/341/342 and 323 of the IPC, against the accused Madhav.
60. It is apposite to note that this Court, being cognizant of the fact
that the present revision petitions have been preferred by the
prosecutrix and not by the accused Madhav assailing the charges
framed against him, has consciously refrained from adjudicating upon
the correctness of the findings returned by the learned Trial Court in
that regard, so as to obviate any potential prejudice to him in the event
he elects to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 26 of 49

Non-Framing of charges under Section 328 and 506 against the
accused Madhav and Abhinav: -
61. The prosecutrix is aggrieved by the non-framing of the charges
against the accused Abhinav and Madhav, under section 328 of the
IPC, when there was sufficient material to demonstrate that the
prosecutrix was administered intoxicating substances which led to her
semi-conscious state.
62. Section 328 of the IPC reads as under :
“ 328.Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to
commit and offence
Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any
person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or
unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to
such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the
commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.”
63. Firstly, upon perusal of the charge sheet, it emerges that no
evidence has been collected by the prosecution to establish that any
poison, stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome substance was
administered to the prosecutrix. There is neither any recovery of such
substance from the scene of the alleged offence nor any medical
evidence to support the allegation. In such circumstance, this Court
finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court not
framing charge under Section 328 of the IPC.
64. In the case of Rajat Mittal v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del
13306 where apart from statement of prosecutrix prosecution could not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 27 of 49

find any evidence and in the absence of any medical examination,
Coordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon Prashant
Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 9 SCC 113, held that charge
under section 328 of the IPC cannot be sustained without any cogent
and corroborative evidence, merely on the basis of oral assertions. The
relevant extract is reproduced as under: -
“5. On perusal of the materials collected during
investigation by the Investigating Agency, I find no
sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner under
Sections 328/313/406 IPC. There is a bald statement of the
prosecutrix in the complaint that on 10.12.2007 when the
petitioner visited her residence and expressed desire to
have a cold drink, she brought cold drink in two glasses;
one for herself and the other for the petitioner. The
petitioner then desired to have some snacks also with the
cold drink. When she went to the kitchen to bring the
snacks and took her cold drink on return, it tasted a little
different. Soon her limbs started shaking and the cold drink
fell from her hands; she became unconscious. When she
regained senses, she was shocked to find herself completely
nude. During investigation, allegations of having been
administered some poisonous or stupefying substance could
not be verified or confirmed. The prosecutrix did not get
herself medically examined any time soon after the said
incident. Nature of ‘substance’ allegedly mixed in the cold
drink could not be ascertained. Nothing emerged as to
from where any such ‘substance’ was procured by the
petitioner. It is on record that subsequent to that, the
petitioner and the prosecutrix had maintained their
friendly relations. Physical relations were established;
albeit on the alleged promise of marriage on various
occasions. ‘X’ did not complain about petitioner's conduct
promptly to the police. In Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT
of Delhi) (2013) 9 SCC 113, the victim had alleged that
the accused therein had offered her cold drink (Pepsi)
allegedly containing poisonous/intoxicating substance.
After drinking the same, she felt inebriated whereupon
the appellant started misbehaving with her and also
touched her breasts. She was taken for medical
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 28 of 49

examination but no evidence of poisoning was found by
the police during investigation. The Apex Curt quashed
the charge under Section 328 IPC observing that
allegations levelled by the prosecutrix of having been
administered some intoxicant in a cold drink could not be
established by the cogent evidence.”
(emphasis supplied)
65. It is also relevant to note that in her complaint, the prosecutrix
had stated that “Madhav gave me cold drink and Abhinav gave me
chips. Thereafter we all started talking and sipping cold drinks. But
later on, I perceived that my cold drink was laced with some sedative
and I started feeling dizziness and nausea….” . In her statement under
section 164 of the CrPC, the prosecutrix stated that “we opened chips
and Madhav poured us cold drinks” . Notably, as per the own version
of the prosecutrix, there is no allegation that the accused Abhinav had
tampered with or spiked the beverages, nor is there any indication that
the chips contained any intoxicating substance, particularly when they
were opened at the spot in the presence of the parties.
66. Surprisingly, the prosecutrix has also, nowhere in her chats with
either Madhav or Abhinav or Annanya, or even with any of her other
friends, has ever alleged that her cold drink/chips were laced by
Madhav or Abhinav. Even before this Court, no additional
material/chats/evidence has been placed to suggest that the
drinks/chips were spiked. Rather, in her chat with her cousin Chunnu
dated 29.12.2020 at 10:49 pm, i.e. proximate to the time of the
incident, she admitted to have willingly consumed alcohol at the party.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 29 of 49

67. Hence, the learned Trial Court was justified in concluding that
the allegation under Section 328 of the IPC is not supported by prima
facie material.
68. Another contention raised by the prosecutrix is that the Trial
Court has erred in not framing a charge under Section 506 of the IPC
despite specific allegations that, upon regaining consciousness, she
was threatened by Abhinav and Madhav with circulation of her
personal videos to deter disclosure and the Trial Court failed to
consider that such threats could constitute intimidation irrespective of
whether the videos were actually made or retained.
69. The said contention, though attractive at first blush, cannot be
accepted in the facts of the present case. It is no doubt true that for an
offence of criminal intimidation, the actual existence or recovery of
the material forming the subject of the threat is not a sine qua non , and
a mere threat, if proved, may suffice. However, what is required at the
stage of framing of charge is the existence of material which prima
facie indicates that such a threat was in fact extended.
70. The FSL reports placed on record do not indicate the existence
or recovery of any such photographs or videos from the devices of any
of the accused, thereby weakening the foundational basis of the
alleged threat. Further, although the prosecutrix had asserted that
nd
similar threats were extended on 1st and 2 January, there is an
absence of any contemporaneous material or corroborative chats to
indicate that such threats were in fact communicated at the relevant
time.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 30 of 49

71. Thus, the very basis of the allegation that any threat was even
extended remains uncorroborated. There is no evidence, no testimony
or even any chat, suggesting that the prosecutrix was threatened by the
accused Madhav or Abhinav, at any point in time.
72. It also remains undisputed that no such allegations were made
by the prosecutrix to any of the witnesses, the chats with whom are
relied upon by the prosecution.
73. Hence, the learned Trial Court had rightly declined to frame
charge under section 506 of the IPC against the accused Abhinav and
Madhav.
Non-Framing of charges under Section 376D/109/107/34 against
the accused persons: -
74. The prosecutrix has vehemently urged that the above charges
were liable to be framed against the accused persons, as there is
sufficient material to suggest that Madhav, Abhinav and Annanya, in
furtherance of their common intention to commit rape upon the
prosecutrix, formed the WhatsApp Group and invited her to the party.
Alternatively, the accused Abhinav and Annanya intentionally abetted
and aided the commission of the offence.
75. Section 376D of the IPC reads as under :
“ 376D. Gang rape
Where a woman is raped by one or more persons
constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common
intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have
committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
twenty years, but which may extend to life which shall mean
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 31 of 49

imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and
with fine:
PROVIDED that such fine shall be just and reasonable
to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:
PROVIDED FURTHER that any fine imposed under this
section shall be paid to the victim.”
76. As regards Section 376D and 34 of the IPC it is well delineated
that the provision postulates a prior meeting of minds and participation
in furtherance of a common intention. Mere presence at the scene or
association with the principal accused, in the absence of any material
indicating a shared design, would not be sufficient to attract the said
provision.
77. As regards abetment, under Sections 107 or 109 of the IPC, the
same requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding, coupled
with the requisite mens rea . Mere facilitation or presence, without
intention to aid the commission of the offence, would not satisfy the
ingredients of abetment. With respect to “ intentional aiding ,” it has
been held in Shri Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 175 that, to
constitute abetment , the alleged abettor must have intentionally
facilitated the commission of the offence. Mere aid without knowledge
or intent cannot amount to abetment. It is insufficient to merely show
that the crime could not have been committed without such
involvement. For instance, a person may casually invite another for a
benign purpose, which incidentally enables the commission of a crime
such as murder; however, unless such invitation was extended with the
intent to facilitate the offence, it would not amount to abetment. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 32 of 49

essence of abetment lies in intentional aid and active complicity, and
not in acts that merely have the effect of facilitating the crime.
78. Similarly, the High Court of Madras, in B. Ammu v. State of
Tamil Nadu, 2008 SCC OnLine Mad 990, has held that mere
negligence or carelessness cannot amount to abetment, as the
prosecution must establish the requisite mens rea under Section 107 of
the IPC. The aid has to be rendered with the intention of facilitating
the offence, and mere assistance, without knowledge or intent
regarding the commission of the crime, would not attract liability for
abetment. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: -
“ 11. Section 306 IPC makes abetment to commit suicide
punishable. Similarly, Sections 107 and 109 IPC makes
abetment an offence. The word abetment means to aid,
encourage or to countenance. Section 107 of IPC defines
abetment of a thing as instigating any person to do a
thing or engage with one or more other person or persons
in any conspiracy for doing of a thing or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or intentionally aids, by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. There are two
explanations appended to Sec. 107 IPC. As per
Explanation (1), A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material
fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. As per
Explanation (2), Whoever, either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing
of that act.
12. Therefore, the word “instigation” assumes significance.
A person is said to instigate any other person to do an act
which makes the other person to do such act by any means
possible, either direct or indirect. Mens rea is necessary
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 33 of 49

concomitant for instigation. Therefore, in order to proceed
against a person for criminal offence u/S. 107 IPC or 306
IPC, the prosecution must prove the element of mens rea.
Therefore, the negligence or carelessness or the
facilitation cannot be termed to be abetment so as to
punish the guilty as per the provisions of penal laws.
However, things would be different in the case of action
in public law.
(emphasis supplied)
79. This Court, in Devi Das v. Union of India, 1985 SCC OnLine
Del 173 , while relying upon Shri Ram (supra), observed as under: -
“2. …..According to Section 107 of the Penal
Code, 1860 a person abets the doing of a thing,
among others, who intentionally aids, by any
act or illegal ommission the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 to S. 107, reliance on which was
placed by Mr. Bagai, reads as below:—
“Explanation 2. — Whoever, either prior to or
at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to faciliate the commission of
that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
On a reading of clause thirdly of
S. 107 IPC and Explanation 2, therefore it is
clear that in order to constitute abetment of
the doing of a thing the abettor must be
shown to have intentionally aided the doing of
that illegal act. It is thus obvious that unless a
person knew that the doer of the wrong thing
was going to commit the illegal act there could
be no question of the alleged abettor intending
to aid the commission of the illegal act by the
doer thereof. A person may be said to do
anything in order to facilitate the commission
of the illegal act by the other and thereby aid
the doing of that act only if the alleged abettor
does the thing knowingly and intentionally
and in order to facilitate the commission of
that wrong act. It is not enough that an act on
the part of an alleged abettor happens to
facilitate the commission of the crime that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 34 of 49

may constitute the offence of abetment on his
part . The decision of the Supreme Court in the
case Shri Ram v. State of U.P. ((1975) 3 SCC
495 : AIR 1975 SC 175) (1) is very instructive
on the point. The Supreme Court held as
below:—
“In order to constitute abetment, the
abettor must be shown to have
“intentionally” aided to commission of
the crime. Mere proof that the crime
charged could not have been committed
without the interposition of the alleged
abettor is not enough compliance with
the requirements of Section 107. A
person may, for example, invite another
casually or for a friendly purpose and
that may facilitate the murder of the
invitee. But unless the invitation was
extended with intent to facilitate the
commission of the murder, the person
inviting cannot be said to have abetted
the murder. It is not enough that an act
on the part of the alleged abettor
happens to facilitate the commission of
the crime. Intentional aiding and
therefore active complicity is the gist of
the offence of abetment.”
Thus in the absence of any material as
stated above having been referred to by the
detaining authority in the grounds of detention,
the order of detention stating that the detention
of the petitioner Devi Dass was being ordered
with a view to preventing the petitioner from
abetting the smuggling of goods, namely, wrist
watches was passed by the detaining authority
clearly without the application of mind and has
to be quashed.”
(emphasis supplied)
80. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P.,
(2017) 7 SCC 780 elaborately discussed the concept of abetment, in
the context of Section 306 of the IPC, breaking it down into its
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 35 of 49

constituent elements under Section 107 of the IPC into instigation,
conspiracy, and intentional aiding. Significant emphasis was laid on
instigation, positive acts of goading, provoking, inciting, urging
forward or encouraging the commission of an act, which may arise
from express words or implied conduct. The Apex Court underscores
that abetment necessarily involves a mental element and active
participation, and cannot be inferred from mere casual remarks, vague
allegations, or isolated incidents without a proximate nexus to the act
in question. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: -
“ 34. The word “abetment” has not been
explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context,
the definition of abetment as provided under
Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC
seeks to punish those who abet the commission
of suicide of other. Whether the person has
abetted the commission of suicide of another or
not is to be gathered from facts and
circumstances of each case and to be found out
by continuous conduct of the accused,
involving his mental element. Such a
requirement can be perceived from the reading
of Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC reads as
under:
“107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets
the doing of a thing, who—
First.— Instigates any person to do that
thing; or
Secondly.— Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or
Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 36 of 49

Explanation 1.— A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment
of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be
done, is said to instigate the doing of that
thing.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant
from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B,
knowing that fact and also that C is not Z,
wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and
thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend
C. Here B abets by instigation the
apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or
at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission
of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing
of that act.”
“Abetment”, thus, means certain amount of
active suggestion or support to do the act.
35. Analysing the concept of “abetment”, as
found in Section 107 IPC, a two-Judge Bench
in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC
605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] has held: (SCC
p. 610, paras 13 & 15)
“13. As per the section, a person can be said
to have abetted in doing a thing, if he,
firstly, instigates any person to do that
thing; or secondly, engages with one or
more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or thirdly,
intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation to Section 107 states that any
wilful misrepresentation or wilful
concealment of material fact which he is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 37 of 49

bound to disclose, may also come within the
contours of “abetment”. It is manifest that
under all the three situations, direct
involvement of the person or persons
concerned in the commission of offence of
suicide is essential to bring home the
offence under Section 306 IPC.
*
15. As per clause Firstly in the said
section, a person can be said to have
abetted in doing of a thing, who
“instigates” any person to do that thing.
The word “instigate” is not defined in
IPC. The meaning of the said word was
considered by this Court in Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
[Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002
SCC (Cri) 1088] .”
In the said authority, the learned Judges have
referred to the pronouncement in Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC
618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] .
36. The word “instigate” literally means to
goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. A person is said to
instigate another person when he actively
suggests or stimulates him to an act by any
means or language, direct or indirect, whether
it takes the form of express solicitation or of
hints, insinuation or encouragement.
Instigation may be in (express) words or may
be by (implied) conduct.
37. The word “urge forward” means to advise
or try hard to persuade somebody to do
something, to make a person to move more
quickly in the particular direction, specially by
pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 38 of 49

person instigating another has to “goad” or
“urge forward” the latter with the intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an
act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it
must be shown that the accused kept on
urging or annoying the deceased by words,
taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual
remark or something said in routine or usual
conversation should not be construed or
misunderstood as “abetment”.
38. Analysing further, in Randhir Singh v. State
of Punjab [Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56] , the
Court has observed thus: (SCC p. 134, para
12)
“12. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding
that person in doing of a thing. In cases of
conspiracy also it would involve that mental
process of entering into conspiracy for the
doing of that thing. More active role which
can be described as instigating or aiding the
doing of a thing is required before a person
can be said to be abetting the commission of
offence under Section 306 IPC.”
39. In Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal
[Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal,
(2012) 9 SCC 734 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146] ,
it has been ruled: (SCC p. 741, para 18)
“18. In fact, from the above discussion it is
apparent that instigation has to be gathered
from the circumstances of a particular case.
No straitjacket formula can be laid down to
find out as to whether in a particular case
there has been instigation which forced the
person to commit suicide. In a particular
case, there may not be direct evidence in
regard to instigation which may have direct
nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case,
an inference has to be drawn from the
circumstances and it is to be determined
whether circumstances had been such
which in fact had created the situation that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 39 of 49

a person felt totally frustrated and
committed suicide. …”
Xxx xxx xxx
41. A two-Judge Bench in Netai Dutta v. State
of W.B. [Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., (2005) 2
SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543] , while
dwelling on the concept of abetment under
Section 107 IPC especially in the context of
suicide note, observed: (SCC p. 661, paras 6-
7)
“6. In the suicide note, except referring to
the name of the appellant at two places,
there is no reference of any act or
incidence whereby the appellant herein is
alleged to have committed any wilful act or
omission or intentionally aided or
instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar
Nag in committing the act of suicide. There
is no case that the appellant has played
any part or any role in any conspiracy,
which ultimately instigated or resulted in
the commission of suicide by deceased
Pranab Kumar Nag.
7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no
allegation made by the complainant that
the appellant herein in any way was
harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag.
The case registered against the appellant
is without any factual foundation. The
contents of the alleged suicide note do not
in any way make out the offence against
the appellant. The prosecution initiated
against the appellant would only result in
sheer harassment to the appellant without
any fruitful result. In our opinion, the
learned Single Judge seriously erred in
holding that the first information report
against the appellant disclosed the
elements of a cognizable offence. There
was absolutely no ground to proceed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 40 of 49

against the appellant herein. We find that
this is a fit case where the extraordinary
power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We
quash the criminal proceedings initiated
against the appellant and accordingly
allow the appeal.”
42. At this juncture, we think it appropriate to
reproduce two paragraphs from Chitresh
Kumar Chopra [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC
605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] . They are:
(SCC p. 611, paras 16 & 19)
“16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench
in Ramesh Kumar case [Ramesh Kumar
v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC
618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , R.C. Lahoti,
J. (as his Lordship then was) said that
instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do “an
act”. To satisfy the requirement of
“instigation”, though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes “instigation”
must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being
spelt out. Where the accused had, by his
acts or omission or by a continued course
of conduct, created such circumstances
that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide, in which
case, an “instigation” may have to be
inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger
or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow, cannot
be said to be instigation .
*
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 41 of 49

This Court again observed: (SCC pp. 611-
12, para 20)
“20. … The question as to what is the
cause of a suicide has no easy answers
because suicidal ideation and behaviours
in human beings are complex and
multifaceted. Different individuals in the
same situation react and behave differently
because of the personal meaning they add
to each event, thus accounting for
individual vulnerability to suicide. Each
individual's suicidability pattern depends
on his inner subjective experience of
mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect.
Each of these factors are crucial and
exacerbating contributor to an individual's
vulnerability to end his own life, which
may either be an attempt for self-
protection or an escapism from intolerable
self.”
(emphasis supplied)
81. “ Aiding ” and “ abetting ”, as contemplated under Section 109 of
the IPC, have been elaborately discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
in Kulwant Singh v. State of Bihar (2007) 15 SCC 670, and it was
categorically held that the liability for abetment arises only when the
offence is committed in consequence of such active participation, even
if the abettor is not physically present at the scene. Crucially, it was
held that mere failure to prevent the commission of an offence is not
by itself abetment. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: -
“ 11. Section 109 IPC reads as follows:
“109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed
in consequence and where no express provision is made for its
punishment.—Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act
abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no
express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 42 of 49

such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for
the offence.
Explanation.—An act or offence is said to be committed in
consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence
of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the
aid which constitutes the abetment.
Illustrations
(a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for
showing A some favour in the exercise of B's official functions. B
accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in Section
161.
(b) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the
instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that
offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B.
(c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A in pursuance of the
conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that
he may administer it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy,
administers the poison to Z in A's absence and thereby causes Z's
death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that
offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for
murder.”
12. Where a person aids and abets the perpetrator of a
crime at the very time the crime is committed, he is a
principal of the second degree and Section 109 applies.
But mere failure to prevent the commission of an offence
is not by itself an abetment of that offence. Considering
the definition in Section 109 strictly, the instigation must
have reference to the thing that was done and not to the
thing that was likely to have been done by the person who
is instigated. It is only if this condition is fulfilled that a
person can be guilty of abetment by instigation. Section
109 is attracted even if the abettor is not present when the
offence abetted is committed provided that he had
instigated the commission of the offence or has engaged
with one or more other persons in a conspiracy to commit
an offence and pursuant to the conspiracy some act or
illegal omission takes place or has intentionally induced
the commission of an offence by an act or illegal
omission. In the absence of direct involvement, conviction
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 43 of 49

for abetment is not sustainable. (See Joseph Kurian v.
State of Kerala [(1994) 6 SCC 535 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 20] .)
13.Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of abetment and there is no
provision for the punishment of such abetment then the
offender is to be punished with the punishment provided
for the original offence. Section 109 applies even where
the abettor is not present. Active abetment at the time of
committing the offence is covered by Section 109.
14. Act abetted in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Mere help in the preparation for the commission of
an offence which is not ultimately committed is not
abetment within the meaning of Section 109. “Any offence”
in Section 109 means offence punishable under IPC or any
special or local law. The abetment of an offence under the
special or local law, therefore, is punishable under Section
109 IPC. For constituting offence of abetment, intentional
and active participation by the abettor is necessary.
15. There is a distinction between Section 109 and Section
114. Section 114 applies where a criminal first abets an
offence to be committed by another person, and is
subsequently present at its commission. Active abetment at
the time of committing the offence is covered by Section
109 and Section 114 is clearly intended for an abetment
previous to the actual commission of the crime, that is
before the first steps have been taken to commit it.”
(emphasis supplied)
82. Keeping the above settled principles in mind we shall proceed
to examine the material on record and address the contentions raised.
83. Admittedly, Annanya was not even present at the time of the
alleged incident, and neither the complaint nor the statements recorded
under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC attribute any overt act,
including sexual advances/assault or active participation, to accused
Abhinav or Annanya. The statements of common friends Amani and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 44 of 49

Chetna, as well as contemporaneous WhatsApp chats with Purvi,
consistently reflect that the allegations were directed solely against
Madhav. Significantly, in her immediate narration of the incident on
29.12.2020, as well as in subsequent chats on 30.12.2020 and
31.12.2020 with her friends, including in the group chat “ None of Your
Business ” and private conversations, the prosecutrix did not implicate
or express any grievance against Abhinav or Annanya. Even in her
conversation with Madhav on the same day and in chats with her
cousin, she referred only to Madhav, without attributing any role in
sexual assault to the other accused.
84. The material on record does not disclose any circumstance
suggesting a pre-arranged/mediated plan or meeting of minds
between the accused persons. There is no allegation that Abhinav had
any prior acquaintance with the prosecutrix or any role in planning the
alleged act. Though it has been sought to be argued that Annanya was
crucial in planning the party, it emerges from the material placed on
record i.e. the WhatsApp chats between the accused persons and the
prosecutrix, that, the plan of party was initiated by the prosecutrix on
24.12.2020, who asked Madhav if they could meet · on 29.12.220
wherein she stated 'sun', 'mil' ,'29' ,'annanya Abhinav bhi', “I m asking
her'. Annanya had given her confirmation to the above plan only on
26.12.2020, as is reflected in WhatsApp chat dated 26.12.2020 between
accused Madhav and Abhinav stating 'Annanya ne haanboldi’. I t was
only the prosecutrix who had created a WhatsApp group and added all
the accused persons namely accused Madhav, Abhinav and Annanya
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 45 of 49

as its members on 28.12.2020. It remains undisputed from the material
that since, inadvertently, the father of co-accused Abhinav was added
in the aforesaid group, the group was dissolved and a new group was
created by accused Madhav.
85. Insofar as accused Abhinav is concerned, it is contended that no
specific overt act has been attributed to him in relation to the alleged
offence, nor is there any material to suggest instigation, facilitation, or
participation in any conspiracy with the principal accused. The fact
that the booking was made by him for Madhav, though relied upon by
the prosecutrix, does not, in itself, establish any coordinated action or
meeting of minds so as to infer a shared intention. It is also material to
note that in her contemporaneous communications, prosecutrix has
clearly expressed uncertainty regarding his involvement prior to the
registration of the FIR. At best, such circumstance may give rise to a
suspicion, however, it falls short of the threshold of grave suspicion
required at the stage of charge.
86. The allegation that Abhinav had purchased contraceptives prior
to the incident has also been relied upon by the prosecutrix to suggest
premeditation. However, the said allegation is not supported by any
cogent material on record. There is no recovery, no independent
corroboration, and no material establishing the purpose or nexus of
such alleged purchase with the commission of the offence. Even
assuming such a purchase to have taken place, in the absence of any
evidence linking the same to a shared intention or facilitation of the
alleged act, no inference of abetment can be drawn. At best, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 46 of 49

allegation remains speculative and falls short of raising a grave
suspicion. The contraceptive could be for personal use and merely
because in certain chats Annanya has denied that it is was not for
Abhinav and her, the same does not reflect that it was brought for
Madhav with the intention to abet the commission of the offence.
Even if the case of the prosecutrix is taken at the highest, and it is
assumed that Madhav had pre-planned committing rape upon her,
there is nothing to show that Abhinav or Annanya had knowledge of
the same.
87. Insofar as Ananya is concerned, the allegations against her are
confined to her having allegedly taken the mobile phone of the
prosecutrix and not permitting her to bolt the washroom door. The
material on record, including call detail records and FSL analysis,
prima facie indicates that the prosecutrix continued to have access to
and use her mobile phone during the relevant period, including
making calls to her cousin “ Chunnu ”, her mother, and Annanya
herself. In such circumstances, the allegation that the phone was taken
away to prevent her from seeking assistance does not find adequate
corroboration. Even otherwise, the explanation put forth that the
phone was handled to avoid an uncomfortable interaction with the
prosecutrix’s family while she was in an inebriated condition cannot
be said to be inherently implausible at this stage. In the absence of any
material indicating that such act was done with the intention to
facilitate the commission of the alleged offence, the same cannot be
construed as intentional aiding. Further, mere possession or return of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 47 of 49

the phone, by Abhinav to the prosecutrix, also does not establish any
common intention or active participation.
88. Similarly, the allegation that Annanya did not permit the
prosecutrix to bolt the washroom door does not, by itself, establish any
nexus with the alleged offence. The explanation that she accompanied
the prosecutrix out of concern for her condition and did not permit the
door to be locked for safety reasons cannot be outrightly discarded at
this stage. There is no material to suggest that such conduct formed
part of any pre-concerted plan or was intended to aid the commission
of the alleged act.
89. It is thus evident that neither the acts attributed to Abhinav or
Annanya the essential ingredients of abetment. There is no material
indicating instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding, nor is there
any evidence of the requisite mens rea . There is no prior
communication between the accused suggesting any meeting of minds
or conspiracy to commit the alleged offence. There is also no pre- or
post-incident communication between Abhinav and Annanya that
could be construed as incriminating or confessional in nature.
90. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the material on record does not disclose any
foundational facts for invoking Sections 376D, 34, 107, or 109 of the
IPC.
CONCLUSION
91. Though a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of the
testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, yet, at the stage of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 48 of 49

framing of charges, when the entire material on record completely
belies the prosecution case and fails to raise even a grave suspicion
against the accused persons regarding commission of certain offences,
the benefit thereof must enure to the accused persons.
92. Even before this Court, no material has been placed to
demonstrate any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and thus,
subjecting the accused to the rigours of a full-fledged trial in such
circumstances would be an abuse of the process of law and cause
unwarranted prejudice, when the foundational facts themselves do not
disclose the commission of certain offences.
93. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court
has, after duly appreciating the material on record and considering the
broad probabilities of the case, rightly discharged the accused Abhinav
and Annanya and declined to frame charges under section
376D/328/506/34 of the IPC against the accused Madhav.
94. Needless to say, if at any subsequent stage, the Trial Court finds
evidence to proceed against any of the accused, it is open to the
learned Trial Court to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
95. Accordingly, the Petitions are dismissed, along with pending
application(s), if any.
96. A photocopy of the Judgment passed today be kept in the
connected matter.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MAY 22, 2026
Jan
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:22.05.2026
20:41:44
CRL.REV.P. 549/2023&CRL.REV.P. 704/2023 Page 49 of 49