Delhi High Court
Sachindra Priyadarshi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Chief … on 12 August, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.08.2025
+ CRL.REV.P. 454/2024 & CRL.M.A. 10576/2024
SACHINDRA PRIYADARSHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Mrs.
Pratibha Sinha and Mr. Sneh
Vardhan, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE CHIEF
SECRETARY GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
State along with SI Manisha.
Complainant through Video-
conferencing.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The petitioner-accused, by way of this petition, prays for
discharge in Sessions Case No. 124/2020, arising out of FIR No.
387/2019, registered at Police Station Mandawali, Delhi, for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 328/376/323/506
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟], and seeks setting
aside of order dated 10.01.2024 [hereafter „impugned order‟] passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (RC), East,
CRL.REV.P.454/2024 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:13.08.2025
17:07:31
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court‟] vide which
charges have been framed against the petitioner for offence under
Sections 328, 376(2)(n), 323, 506(II), 313 of the IPC.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix lodged a
written complaint on 29.11.2019 at the concerned Police Station
alleging that on 22.09.2018, the petitioner, who was her colleague at
her workplace, had invited her to his residence for a party. Upon
arrival, she had found only the petitioner present, who had offered
her a cold drink, which she had initially declined but later consumed
upon his insistence. According to the prosecutrix, after drinking the
same, she had lost consciousness, and when she had regained
consciousness, she had found herself unclothed. On confronting the
petitioner, he allegedly stated that he had forcefully established
physical relations with her. When she objected, he assured her of
marriage but also threatened that if she disclosed the incident to
anyone, he would upload her nude photographs and videos on social
media. It is further alleged that the petitioner had repeatedly
subjected the prosecutrix to physical relations against her will,
accompanied by threats and physical assaults whenever she resisted.
The prosecutrix has also alleged that she became pregnant on two
occasions and that the petitioner, without consulting any doctor, had
forcibly administered her medicines to induce miscarriage. She also
alleges that the petitioner had threatened to kill her and subjected her
to sustained physical and mental torture.
CRL.REV.P.454/2024 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:13.08.2025
17:07:31
3. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR was
registered and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟] was
recorded.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that
charges cannot be framed solely on the basis of the FIR and
statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of
Cr.P.C. It is urged that there are material discrepancies in these
statements. He further submits that even if the statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is taken at its face value, the alleged offence
of rape is not established in the absence of compliance with Section
164A of Cr.P.C., which mandates the medical examination of a rape
victim. According to him, since the prosecutrix declined to undergo
internal medical examination, the statutory requirement stood
unfulfilled, which entitles the petitioner to discharge.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State submits that
Section 164A of Cr.P.C. pertains to the medical examination of a
rape victim and that the prosecutrix was in fact medically examined,
as per law. He submits that her refusal to undergo internal
examination does not amount to non-compliance with Section 164A
of Cr.P.C. He further contends that at the stage of framing of charge,
the Court is only required to assess whether the material on record
raises a strong suspicion of the commission of the alleged offence,
and is not to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence. Reliance is
CRL.REV.P.454/2024 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:13.08.2025
17:07:31
placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Hazrat
Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781, wherein
it has been held that in a case of sexual assault, a charge can be
framed on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded
under Sections 161 or 164 of Cr.P.C., and that minor discrepancies
therein cannot be a ground for discharge. It is thus prayed that the
petition be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned
counsel appearing for either side, and has perused the material
available on record.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the submission advanced on
behalf of the petitioner – that the prosecutrix‟s refusal to undergo
internal medical examination was fatal to the prosecution case to the
extent that even charges could not have been framed – is without
merit. This contention is contrary to the settled legal principles
governing the stage of framing of charge in cases of sexual assault.
8. At this juncture, it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the
settled position of law. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ghulam
Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey: (2022) 12 SCC 657, after
discussing several judicial precedents, has summed up the law of
framing of charge in following words:
“…Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is
enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framingCRL.REV.P.454/2024 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:13.08.2025
17:07:31
of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The
endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it
is without applying its mind and without recording brief
reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law.
However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the
Court at the time of framing charge should be the material that
is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of
such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the
exercise a mini-trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the
accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must
be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is
sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an
offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice…”
9. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in case of Bhawna Bai v.
Ghanshyam: (2020) 2 SCC 217, held as under:
“13. …At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie
case is to be seen; whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is
not to be seen at this stage. At the stage of framing the charge,
the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. While evaluating the materials, strict
standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against
the accused is to be seen.”
10. It has also been held that if an accused files a petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or a revision under Sections 397/401 of
Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of charges, the Court should not
interfere unless there are strong grounds to believe that continuing the
case would be unjust or would amount to misuse of the process of
Court[Ref: Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and
Anr.: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057].
11. Judicial precedents make it abundantly clear that, while
CRL.REV.P.454/2024 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:13.08.2025
17:07:31
framing a charge, the Court is not required to meticulously evaluate
the evidence, assess its probative value, or render an opinion on the
eventual outcome of the trial. The Court‟s task is limited to forming a
prima facie view based on the incriminating material placed on
record by the prosecution. Unless there is material of such a nature
that it completely negates the prosecution‟s case or renders it
inherently improbable, the charge must be framed if the material
raises strong suspicion against the accused. Minor contradictions or
inconsistencies are not to be weighed at this stage.
12. In the context of an offence under Section 376 of IPC, it is
well-recognised that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., supported by her statement under Section 161
of Cr.P.C., can by itself constitute prima facie material for framing a
charge. This is because such offences are generally committed in
secrecy, away from public gaze, and the likelihood of there being
independent eyewitnesses is minimal. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
has consistently held that even a conviction can rest solely on the
testimony of the prosecutrix if it is found to be of sterling quality. At
the stage of charge, therefore, a statement under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. containing specific allegations of sexual assault, corroborated
by the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and further supported
by the medical history narrated by the prosecutrix to the examining
doctor, is more than sufficient to proceed to trial. To hold otherwise
would be contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
CRL.REV.P.454/2024 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:13.08.2025
17:07:31
13. To reiterate, in the present case, the prosecutrix has given
detailed accounts of the alleged sexual assaults by the accused in her
statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in her statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and in the history provided to the doctor at
the time of her medical examination. The refusal to undergo internal
medical examination, as rightly observed by the learned Sessions
Court, does not materially affect the case at the stage of framing of
charges. The FIR was registered on 29.11.2019, she was taken for
medical examination on 29.11.2019, whereas the last alleged incident
had occurred in July 2019; hence, an internal examination at that
stage would have been of limited evidentiary value. Moreover, the
requirements of Section 164A of Cr.P.C. stand satisfied, as the
prosecutrix was medically examined within 24 hours of registration
of the FIR. Her refusal for internal examination cannot, therefore, be
a ground to discard her statement at the threshold.
14. As regards the alleged improvements in the prosecutrix‟s
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., even if there are any
improvements, these are matters to be tested during trial. As held by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (supra), an accused in a sexual offence case cannot be
discharged solely on the basis of discrepancies between the FIR and
statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this
Court finds no merit in the contention that no charge under Section
376 of IPC is made out.
CRL.REV.P.454/2024 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:13.08.2025
17:07:31
15. However, with respect to Section 328 of IPC, there is no
material, even prima facie, to suggest that the accused administered
any stupefying substance to the prosecutrix as the allegation is
unsupported by any medical evidence. In the absence of such
material, the ingredients of Section 328 of IPC are not made out, and
the petitioner is entitled to discharge for this offence.
16. With regard to Sections 323 and 506(II) of IPC, the prosecutrix
has clearly alleged that the accused had physically assaulted her and
threatened to kill her and to circulate her nude photographs on social
media in the event she disclosed the assaults or refused to engage in
sexual relations with him. These allegations are sufficient at this
stage to uphold the framing of charges for these offences.
17. As far as Section 313 of IPC is concerned, the prosecutrix has
specifically alleged that she had become pregnant on two occasions
as a result of forcible and non-consensual intercourse by the accused,
and that he caused miscarriages by administering medicines without
medical consultation. Whether such medicines were in fact
administered, and whether they caused miscarriage, are matters to be
established during trial. At this stage, the specific nature of the
allegations is sufficient to justify the framing of charge under Section
313 of IPC.
18. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is
modified to the extent that the petitioner stands discharged for the
commission of offence under Section 328 of IPC alone. The framing
CRL.REV.P.454/2024 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:13.08.2025
17:07:31
of charges for the remaining offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 323,
506(II), and 313 IPC is however upheld.
19. The present petition, alongwith pending application, is
accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
20. It is however clarified that observations made in the judgment
are solely for the purpose of deciding present petition and shall not
affect the merits of the case during the trial.
21. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 12, 2025/A
td/ts
CRL.REV.P.454/2024 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:13.08.2025
17:07:31