Rape Victim's Refusal To Undergo Medical Exam Doesn't Affect Prosecution Case At Stage Of Framing Charges: Delhi High Court

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed,

“...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…is more than sufficient to proceed to trial...The refusal to undergo internal medical examination, does not materially affect the case at the stage of framing of charges.”

The bench was dealing with the accused's plea seeking discharge in the FIR lodged under Sections 328 (causing hurt by intoxicating), 376 (rape), 323 (hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC on the ground that the prosecutrix declined to undergo internal medical examination.

The prosecutrix had alleged that the Petitioner-accused, who was her colleague, spiked her drink and forcefully established physical relations with her.

Petitioner however claimed that even if her statement under Section 164 CrPC is taken at its face value, the alleged offence of rape is not established in the absence of compliance with Section 164A of CrPC, which mandates the medical examination of a rape victim.

The Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that Section 164A of CrPC pertains to medical examination of a rape victim and that the prosecutrix was in fact medically examined, as per law.

It was submitted that her refusal to undergo internal examination does not amount to non-compliance with Section 164A.

The High Court agreed with the prosecution and held that Petitioner's contention is contrary to the settled legal principles governing the stage of framing of charge in cases of sexual assault. It observed,

“When 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.”

In the context of an offence of rape, the Court further said,

“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.”

As such, the Court refused to discharge him of the offence.

It however held that Section 328 IPC is not made out as there is no material, even prima facie, to suggest that the accused administered any stupefying substance to the prosecutrix.

Appearance: Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, Mrs. Pratibha Sinha and Mr. Sneh Vardhan, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State along with SI Manisha.

Case title: Sachindra Priyadarshi v. State Of NCT Of Delhi Through The Chief Secretary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 970

Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 454/2024

Click here to read order