Absence of prior meeting of minds or intentional aid precludes charges of gang rape and abetment.

The Prosecutrix/Revisionist filed a complaint on 26.02.2021 alleging that on 29.12.2020, she was sexually assaulted at a Greater Kailash-I flat by Madhav Bhutani after being given a drink she suspected was laced with sedatives

She alleged that Abhinav Malhotra and Annanya Singh were part of a pre-designed plan, citing that Annanya prevented her from locking the bathroom door and took her phone, while Abhinav purchased condoms and threatened her with recorded videos

The Trial Court (order dated 16.02.2023) framed charges against Madhav for Sections 323/341/342/354/376 IPC but discharged him under Sections 328/506 IPC

The Court also discharged co-accused Abhinav and Annanya of all charges, finding no "grave suspicion" of involvement or common intention

The Prosecutrix filed a revision seeking to charge all accused under Sections 376D/328/506/34 IPC

The Court applied the standard for framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, as established in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, which mandates that the Judge must find "grave suspicion" rather than mere suspicion to frame a charge

Regarding Section 328 IPC, the Court relied on Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Rajat Mittal v. State, holding that charges of poisoning/intoxication cannot be sustained without cogent medical evidence or recovery of the substance

For abetment under Section 107/109 IPC and common intention under Section 34 IPC, the Court followed Shri Ram v. State of U.P. and Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., which establish that intentional aiding and active complicity (mens rea) are essential; mere presence, negligence, or facilitation without knowledge of the crime does not amount to abetment

The Court observed that there was zero medical evidence or recovery of any sedative to support the Section 328 charge, and the Prosecutrix’s own contemporaneous chats admitted to voluntary alcohol consumption

Regarding Section 506, FSL reports showed no videos or photos on the devices, and no evidence of the alleged threats existed in contemporaneous communications

For the Gang Rape (Section 376D) and abetment charges, the Court found that the Prosecutrix herself initiated and organized the party

Annanya’s actions (not locking the bathroom door and holding the phone) were found to be plausible acts of care for an intoxicated friend rather than intentional aiding of rape

Abhinav’s purchase of condoms and booking of the flat were deemed insufficient to prove a "shared design," as there was no evidence he knew of Madhav's alleged intent

The Court concluded that the revisionist failed to show "grave suspicion" against the discharged parties, as the internal communications between friends for two months post-incident only blamed Madhav

It held that charges under Sections 328 and 506 were correctly dropped for lack of evidence

It further affirmed the discharge of Abhinav and Annanya, ruling that the ingredients of Section 376D, 34, 107, or 109 IPC were not met as there was no evidence of a pre-concerted plan or intentional aiding

Madhav Bhutani continues to face trial under Sections 323/341/342/354/376 IPC