Discharge is warranted where allegations disclose no prima facie material linking co-accused to the offence.

The State appealed against the order dated 8 December 2025 by which the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, discharged accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in Special Case No. 239/2023.

The prosecution alleged that on 7 March 2019, accused No. 2, then an office boy, gave the victim a soft drink; after consuming it, she lost consciousness and later found herself nude, with accused No. 1 beside her. The victim married accused No. 1 on 8 May 2019 and lodged her complaint on 2 January 2023. Accused No. 3, who worked as accused No. 1’s driver, was alleged to have facilitated accused No. 1 in evading arrest.

The State challenged the discharge of accused Nos. 2 and 3.

Whether the Special Judge was justified in discharging accused No. 2 where the allegation was that he gave the victim a drink before she lost consciousness, but the complaint was made more than three years later and the victim had married accused No. 1.

Whether the material disclosed a prima facie case against accused No. 3, whose alleged involvement was that he worked as accused No. 1’s driver and facilitated evasion of arrest.

Under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., the court must assess the prosecution material to determine whether a prima facie case exists and whether the facts, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence.

As stated in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368, the court may sift and weigh the evidence for this limited purpose; it need not accept the prosecution’s assertions as unquestionable where they conflict with common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

The High Court upheld the discharge, finding that the allegation against accused No. 2 was limited to offering the victim a drink on 7 March 2019, while the complaint was lodged on 2 January 2023 and the victim had married accused No. 1 on 8 May 2019 and lived with him for more than three years. It concluded that the material did not provide a sufficient basis to proceed against accused No. 2.

As to accused No. 3, the Court found no specific allegation connecting him to the offences beyond his employment as accused No. 1’s driver.

It directed that its observations should not prejudice any party before the Trial Court.