Delhi HC: a court cannot discharge a rape accused by judging the survivor's character at the charge stage

The Delhi High Court set aside an order discharging a man accused under Sections 354C and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sent the question of charge back to the trial court. The woman alleged that he had secretly recorded her and then threatened to circulate the video to compel sexual relations. The Additional Sessions Judge discharged him, emphasising that the video was never recovered, doubting how it could have been made, treating her conduct as showing a consensual relationship, and remarking on her alleged immorality. Justice Madhu Jain held that this went beyond what Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permit.

Citing Sajjan Kumar v. CBI and CBI v. Aryan Singh, the Court said a judge at this stage may sift the material to see whether it discloses sufficient ground or grave suspicion, but cannot hold a mini-trial. Non-recovery of the video could be weighed with the other material, but was not conclusive. Whether threats were made, and whether the acts were without consent, needed evidence. The Court also pointed to Section 53A of the Indian Evidence Act, under which the victim's character or previous sexual experience is not relevant to consent, so the remarks on immorality were no legitimate basis for rejecting the prosecution case.

It expressed no opinion on guilt or innocence, and left the trial court to decide independently. This is a Delhi High Court ruling, binding within Delhi, not a Supreme Court precedent.