Introduction:

In Sachindra Priyadarshi v. State of NCT of Delhi Through The Chief Secretary [CRL.REV.P. 454/2024], the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, delivered a significant ruling clarifying that in cases of sexual assault, a survivor’s refusal to undergo internal medical examination does not materially affect the prosecution’s case at the stage of framing charges, provided there is otherwise sufficient incriminating material. The judgment arose from a petition by the accused seeking discharge from offences under Sections 328 (causing hurt by intoxicating substance), 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on the ground that the prosecutrix declined internal medical examination. The prosecutrix, a colleague of the accused, alleged that he had spiked her drink and raped her. The accused contended that without compliance with Section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with medical examination of rape victims, the charge of rape could not be sustained. The court rejected this contention, underscoring the legal principle that even a conviction can rest solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if found credible, and at the charge stage, courts are not required to assess the probative value of evidence in depth.

Arguments – Petitioner’s Side:

The petitioner, represented by advocates Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, and Mr. Sneh Vardhan, urged the court to discharge him from the offence of rape, relying heavily on the fact that the prosecutrix refused to undergo internal medical examination. He argued that such refusal amounted to non-compliance with Section 164A CrPC, which mandates medical examination of the victim in rape cases, and therefore, the allegations could not be legally sustained. According to the petitioner, even if the prosecutrix’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC was accepted at face value, the absence of an internal examination rendered the allegation of rape unsubstantiated. He further maintained that the chemical analysis or any medical proof confirming administration of a stupefying substance was absent, thus undermining the charges under Section 328 IPC. The defence stressed that the court, in light of these deficiencies, should not proceed to trial on the basis of uncorroborated allegations alone, as it would subject the accused to undue hardship and harassment without adequate prima facie evidence.

Arguments – Prosecution’s Side:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Manoj Pant along with SI Manisha, countered the defence arguments by clarifying that Section 164A CrPC’s requirement had been met, as the prosecutrix was medically examined within 24 hours of the FIR being registered. The refusal to undergo internal examination did not, in their submission, equate to non-compliance with Section 164A, as the provision does not compel a victim to undergo every form of medical procedure against her will. They emphasised that the survivor’s autonomy and consent must be respected, and the absence of an internal examination does not erase the validity of her detailed statement under Section 161 CrPC, which specifically narrated the alleged sexual assaults. The prosecution argued that, as per settled law, even the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sufficient to frame charges and ultimately secure conviction, provided it is of sterling quality. At the stage of charge, the court is only required to see if there is prima facie material to proceed to trial, not to conduct a mini-trial or make conclusive findings. As for the Section 328 IPC charge, the prosecution left it to the court to decide based on the available evidence, acknowledging the absence of direct proof of administration of a stupefying substance.

Court’s Judgment and Observations:

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, after hearing both sides, reaffirmed well-established principles governing the stage of framing charges in criminal trials. The court observed that at this preliminary stage, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to meticulously evaluate evidence or assess its probative value; instead, the court’s role is limited to forming a prima facie view based on the material presented by the prosecution. On the central issue of the internal medical examination, the court held that the requirements of Section 164A CrPC stood satisfied as the prosecutrix was medically examined within the statutory timeframe. Her refusal to undergo an internal examination did not vitiate the prosecution’s case or constitute non-compliance, particularly given her consistent and specific allegations recorded in her statement under Section 161 CrPC. The court also emphasised that even a conviction for rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence and is of sterling quality, without the need for corroborative medical evidence.

Accordingly, the High Court refused to discharge the accused from the offence under Section 376 IPC, allowing the case to proceed to trial on that charge. However, on the question of the Section 328 IPC charge (causing hurt by intoxicating substance), the court found no material, even prima facie, to support the allegation that the accused had administered any stupefying or intoxicating substance to the prosecutrix. Consequently, the court held that Section 328 IPC was not made out and discharged the accused from that specific offence. The charges under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) were allowed to stand, subject to trial.

In sum, the judgment strengthens the jurisprudence that a survivor’s refusal to undergo certain invasive medical procedures does not negate her allegations, particularly at the charge-framing stage, and underscores the paramountcy of respecting a survivor’s bodily autonomy while balancing the accused’s right to a fair trial.