False accusations leave unhealed scars: Delhi High Court upholds discharge of 3 men, calls for scrutiny in rape cases

The Delhi High Court recently observed that false allegations of rape inflict “scars that remain unhealed for a lifetime” on those who are wrongly accused as it upheld the discharge of three men accused of sexual assault in 2023.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Justice was hearing a plea challenging the discharge of the three accused in a gangrape case.

The court observed that such cases undermine public confidence in the justice system, meant to protect genuine survivors of sexual violence.

“Loss of reputation, incarceration, social stigma, and psychological trauma suffered by an accused who is ultimately found to have been falsely implicated may leave scars that remain unhealed for a lifetime, just as the violation of dignity and bodily integrity leaves deep and lasting wounds in genuine cases of sexual assault,” the December 15 order said.

An FIR was registered in 2023 under sections 376 (rape) and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison or other harmful substances with the intent to commit an offence).

The complainant had alleged that she was lured on the promise of a job, taken to a flat in Noida, and sexually assaulted by three men.

The investigation carried out by the police culminated in a chargesheet under the two sections of the IPC.

The court had relied on the woman’s revised statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, according to which she withdrew her claims of having characterised the relationship with one of the accused persons as consensual while exonerating others.

The provision allows a magistrate to record confessions or statements (like those from victims or witnesses) during an investigation, ensuring they are voluntary and reliable for later trial use, often by getting a confession away from police influence to overcome inadmissibility under Indian Evidence Act.

The provision further stipulates that the magistrate must warn the person they aren’t bound to speak and question them to confirm voluntariness, especially in sensitive cases like POCSO, often recorded via audio-video means.

Additional public prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar, challenging the discharge, argued that the trial court erred in ignoring the detailed allegations made in the FIR and the medical examination report, which recorded bruises and the prosecutrix’s narration of sexual assault.

He contended that contradictions between the FIR and later statements could not, by themselves, justify discharge at the stage of framing of charges and that the matter ought to have gone to trial.

Opposing the submissions of the state, advocate Lokesh Kumar Mishra, appearing for the accused, relied heavily on the Section 164 CrPC statement, arguing that it was recorded voluntarily before a magistrate and completely exonerated them.

He submitted that the prosecutrix had admitted to a consensual relationship and expressly stated that no offence had taken place.