In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court against an order dated 31-08-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, discharging all accused persons for committing offences punishable under Sections 328/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to interfere with the impugned order and issued directions regarding recovery of compensation given to sexual offence victims to preserve the credibility of schemes for the benefit of genuine victims of sexual violence.
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 21-01-2023 under Sections 328 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), upon complaint of the prosecutrix. It was alleged that the respondent contacted the prosecutrix through her husband’s nephew and had promised her employment. The respondent called him on 13-01-2023 to arrange a meeting. Upon arriving at the location, she was taken to a flat in Noida, where two other boys and a woman were present. It was alleged that the three male persons raped her and dropped her near the GTB hospital.
After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. However, by the impugned order, all accused persons were discharged from the offences. Aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
The Court stated that at the stage of framing a charge, it is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of the evidence or to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence. It was stated that the Court is required to sift the material on record to the limited extent necessary to ascertain whether the allegations justify the framing of a charge.
The Court noted that a significant and material development occurred when the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), in which she resiled from her allegations and stated that the physical relationship between them was consensual. She also mentioned that the other two men were accompanied by their girlfriends and that they had not committed any act against her.
The Court referred to various cases and stated that a statement recorded under Section 164 has considerable legal significance, as it is recorded by a Magistrate after due compliance with statutory safeguards. It was noted that in the present case, the statement did not indicate any ambiguity, hesitation, or allegation of pressure, and that upon appearing before the Trial Court, the prosecutrix had affirmed that the statement recorded correctly reflected the true version of events.
The Court held that when the statement is read with the conduct of the prosecutrix, the foundational basis of the prosecution’s case stood substantially eroded. The Court was unable to discern any strong or grave suspicion against the accused persons, warranting the framing of charges under Sections 328 and 376 of the IPC. Hence, the Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Further, the Court noted that the prosecutrix did not allege that her earlier statements were given under any threat, pressure, or coercion, and that no explanation was offered as to why the allegations of gang rape were initially levelled and subsequently withdrawn. The Court stated that loss of reputation, incarceration, social stigma, and psychological trauma suffered by an accused found to be falsely implicated may leave scars that remain unhealed for a lifetime. It was said that such harm cannot be undone merely by an order of discharge or a few words of sympathy.
The Court stated that false sexual offence complaints create doubt and hesitation in the minds of people at large, even where a genuine complaint of sexual assault exists. The Court found that a scrutiny was necessary to ensure that genuine cases of sexual violence do not suffer dilution or attract unwarranted scepticism because of false complaints.
Even though the Court refrained from directing initiation of any action under Sections 182 or 211 of the IPC, but left it open to the respondents or State to take steps as may be permissible in law.
The Court further considered the State’s concern regarding the victim compensation scheme and stated that the grant of compensation necessarily proceeds on the assumption that the claim is made in good faith. The Court noted the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, and said that Clause 13 specifically provides for the recovery of compensation. While taking note of the Standard Operating Procedure framed by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA), which elaborates the procedure for effecting the recovery when it is found that the information is either false or misleading, the Court stated that the effective implementation of these provisions was essential to preserve the integrity of victim compensation frameworks.
It was said that if interim compensation disbursed in cases of false allegations is routinely allowed to remain unrecovered, it would not only result in misuse of public funds but would also dilute the credibility of schemes meant to support genuine victims of sexual violence. Hence, the Court issued the following directions:
• In sexual offence cases where compensation has been awarded, it would be the duty of the Trial Court to forward a copy of the order and relevant record to DSLSA to enable them to examine whether recovery proceedings are to be initiated in situations –
i. Where FIR or criminal proceedings are quashed based on settlement or compromise, and such an order is received by the Trial Court
ii. Where the victim turns hostile, resiles from earlier allegations, or exonerates accused of the alleged offences
• In all petitions filed before the Court for quashing FIRs in sexual offence cases based on compromise or settlement, it would be mandatory to disclose whether the victim has received any compensation.
The Court directed that the present judgment be forwarded to DSLSA for examination of whether any interim compensation was granted to the prosecutrix in the present case and whether the recovery provisions should be invoked.
Thus, the petition was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar
For Respondents – Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra
