Delhi High Court
The State (Gnct Of Delhi) vs Sahil Chopra & Ors. on 17 January, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.01.2025
+ CRL.REV.P. 52/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1366/2024
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
State.
versus
SAHIL CHOPRA & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Pawan
Sankhla, Mr. Padam Sankhla,
Mr. Lalit Sankhla and Mr.
Aditya Raj, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The present petition has been preferred by the State, under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟), seeking setting aside of the
order on charge dated 20.09.2023 (hereafter „impugned order‟)
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House
Court, Delhi (hereafter „learned Sessions Court‟) in Sessions Case
No. 306/2020, arising out of FIR No. 362/2020, dated 18.08.2020,
registered under Sections 376D/506/109 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereafter „IPC‟) at Police Station Kishan Garh, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 52/2024 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:30:38
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as evident from the records
and the impugned order, are that the victim in the present case is a
national of Uzbekistan and was residing at a rented accommodation
with her friends. Allegedly, on 13.08.2020, she was alone in her
house when the accused no. 1 and 2, namely Sahil Chopra and
Baljeet Singh, had committed rape upon her. Thereafter, they had
threatened her not to take any action against them. It is stated that the
accused Shokkhnoza Trigarhera @ Shahnoz @ Shahnaj had
instigated the other accused persons to commit rape. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the said
accused persons for offences under Sections 376D/506/109 of IPC.
3. However, by way of impugned order dated 20.09.2023, the
learned Sessions Court discharged all three accused persons in the
present case. The conclusion of the learned Sessions Court, as
recorded in the impugned order, is set out below:
“Two complete different versions of the prosecutrix in her
statements, delay in the FIR, contrary version in the MLC etc.
Raised serious doubts over the case of the prosecution. The
prosecution miserably failed to reconcile the entirely different
statement of the prosecutrix in the FIR and the statement u/s
164 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the complete denial of any physical or
sexual abuse by the prosecutrix in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C
add misery to the prosecution case. Therefore, in view of the
foregoing reasons, no case of grave suspicion is made out and
there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against all the
accused persons. The accused persons namely Sahil Chopra,
Baljeet Singh and Shokkhnoza Trigarhera are accordingly,
discharged in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C.”
4. The State, by way of present revision petition, challenges the
aforesaid order. The learned APP for the State contends that despite
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 52/2024 Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:30:38
there being incriminating evidence on record, the learned Sessions
Court has discharged all the accused persons. He states that the
impugned order has been passed on the basis of imagination,
presumption, conjectures and surmises. He also argues that the victim
had levelled specific allegations in her complaint against the accused
persons.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned APP for the State
conceded that the victim had not supported her own claim in her
statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. He
however contended that since the FIR was registered at her instance
only, the statements recorded thereafter under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,
cannot be considered at this stage of framing of charge.
6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondents/accused persons vehemently argued that there is no
infirmity with the impugned order and the learned Sessions Court has
correctly appreciated the facts of the case, evidence on record, as well
as the statements of the victim herself, and thereafter, discharged the
accused persons. Therefore, it is prayed that in view of the settled law
on charge and discharge, the present petition ought to be dismissed.
7. This Court has arguments advanced on behalf of both the
parties and has also gone through the case file and the impugned
order.
8. In this Court‟s opinion, there is no doubt that any improvement
made in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of
Cr.PC cannot be a sole ground for discharge of an accused [Ref:
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 52/2024 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:30:38
Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781].
However, where the victim, immediately after lodging the FIR, in her
statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC recorded by the
Police, as well as in her statement recorded by the learned Magistrate
under Section 164 of Cr.PC, does not utter a single word against an
accused regarding the incident in question, and the charge-sheet is
filed, clearly setting out the fact that the statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.PC does not reflect any incriminating evidence
against the accused, a Court cannot reach a conclusion at the stage of
framing of charge that commission of an offence is made out, even
prima facie.
9. This Bench, in the case of State v. Sudershan Kumar: 2023
SCC OnLine Del 1647, had discussed in detail the principles, while
relying on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, for
consideration at the time of framing of charge or discharge of an
accused. In the said decision, this Bench had also discussed the
meaning and purport of the word „prima facie view‟. The relevant
findings of the said decision are set out hereunder:
“ii. Prima Facie View
14. The very foundation of formation of opinion regarding
framing of charge is as to whether “there is sufficient material
on record to prima facie make out a case of commission of an
offence”. Therefore, a duty has been cast on the Trial Court
judges to apply their mind carefully to the material before them
to form such opinion.
15. The edifice of an order on charge is appreciation of prima
facie view of the matter. Therefore, it becomes important to
address the pertinent question as to what constitutes a “prima
facie” view qua the stage of framing charges.
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 52/2024 Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:30:38
16. Prima facie refers to something that can be determined at
first glance, at first impression, on the surface, or inasmuch as it
can be inferred from the initial disclosure. Black’s Law
Dictionary, 5th Ed. suggests that the prima facie case would
mean that the evidence brought on record would reasonably
allow the conclusion that the plaintiff seeks. Therefore, “prima
facie” would mean the suggestion that comes from having the
first glance of anything.
17. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Greek, the
literal meaning of prima facie is “on/at first viewing”. It will
necessarily mean that looking at something at its face value and
not going into any intricate or detailed analysis, therefore, the
word prima facie when used in terms of prima facie view as far
as consideration of charge is concerned would mean there being
enough material of substance which will give rise to strong
suspicion against the accused and holding of a view in favour
of prosecution…”
10. Once a charge-sheet is filed before a Court, the Court
concerned has to take into consideration the entire material which is
placed before it, in the form of all the statements, not only of the
victim, but of other witnesses also, and the documentary and
electronically evidence, if any, to reach a conclusion as to whether
even at that stage, a prima facie view of the matter, when taken,
would result into a conclusion that the offence in question could have
been committed. At this stage, it is not essential to reach a conclusion
that the offence had been committed beyond reasonable doubt, and
the Courts are not vested with the authority to delve into the
probative value of evidence, nor they are permitted to engage in a
mini-trial. The Court‟s role remains circumscribed, confined to the
determination of whether there exists a prima facie case and
suspicion against the accused that justifies the framing of charges.
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 52/2024 Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:30:38
11. In the present case, when the charge-sheet was filed, the
statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC itself did not disclose
commission of any offence, as the victim herself denied the
commission of the alleged offence. The statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.PC. categorically reflects that though the victim
had signed the complaint given to the police, she however did not
know the contents of the same. She categorically mentions that no
sexual abuse had taken place with her, though, she stated that there
was some theft which was taken place in her flat, as she was sleeping
in another room. She also stated that she was not threatened by
anyone. Concededly, the victim herein did not understand English or
Hindi and her statement was recorded with the help of an authorized
Translator by the learned Magistrate, whereas the complaint in the
present case had been lodged without the help of a Translator, by one
advocate on the instructions of a friend of the victim, but the victim
stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.PC that she did
not know the contents of the FIR. The learned Sessions Court, in the
impugned order, also observed that no CCTV footage was seized by
the investigating officer in this case, and the allegations of gang rape
as stated in the FIR were changed to theft in the statement recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
12. Thus, the present case is not the one where there is any
improvement or contradiction in the statement of the victim, on the
basis of which, the respondents herein have been discharged, but is a
case where the victim did not understand the language in which the
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 52/2024 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:30:38
FIR was registered, who disclosed, before filing of the charge-sheet
and immediately after the alleged incident i.e. when her statement
under Section 164 of Cr.PC was recorded, that no incident of rape,
sexual abuse or threats had taken place. The charge-sheet, therefore,
itself did not disclose any incriminating evidence to suggest strong
suspicion against the respondents herein, regarding commission of
offence under Sections 376D/506/109 of the IPC.
13. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the learned
Sessions Court did not commit any error in discharging the
respondents herein.
14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed alongwith
pending application.
15. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 17, 2025/A
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 52/2024 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:21.01.2025
14:30:38
[ad_1]
Source link