Delhi High Court sets aside discharge in rape case, says victim’s alleged “immorality” cannot be used to reject case at charge stage

The prosecutrix alleged that respondent No. 2 secretly recorded a video of her while she was bathing and threatened to circulate it, thereby coercing her into repeated sexual relations.

She also alleged that he pressured her to seek a divorce and to take cash and jewellery.

After investigation, including examination of recovered phones that yielded no data, the police filed charge-sheets.

The Trial Court discharged respondent No. 2, relying in part on the video’s non-recovery, the circumstances of the alleged recording, and the prosecutrix’s conduct. The prosecutrix challenged the discharge order in revision.

1. Whether the Trial Court applied the correct principles under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. when it discharged respondent No. 2.

2. Whether the Trial Court could reject the prosecutrix’s allegations at the charge stage based on the video’s non-recovery, perceived improbabilities, and her conduct.

Under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the court at the charge stage considers whether the material discloses sufficient ground to proceed; grave suspicion may justify framing a charge, but the court must not conduct a mini-trial or meticulously assess evidence (Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368; CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399).

The court may sift and weigh material for this limited purpose, but should not determine whether conviction will ultimately follow.

Section 53A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that evidence of a victim’s character or previous sexual experience is not relevant to consent or its quality in the specified sexual-offence prosecutions.

The High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to review the legality of the discharge order.

The High Court held that the Trial Court went beyond the permissible charge-stage inquiry by treating the video’s non-recovery and its assessment of how the recording could have occurred as grounds to disbelieve the prosecutrix.

The missing iPhone neither established that a recording existed nor conclusively proved that none existed; the remaining material still required consideration.

Likewise, the prosecutrix’s conduct and alleged relationship with respondent No. 2 could not, without assessing the evidence, conclusively establish consent, and the Trial Court’s observations about her alleged immorality were inappropriate.

By resolving credibility and disputed factual questions, the Trial Court failed to apply the proper threshold for discharge.

It remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of whether charges should be framed, in accordance with law and without treating the High Court’s observations as an opinion on guilt or innocence.