The Delhi High Court has issued a powerful observation on the devastating impact of false sexual assault accusations, stating they inflict "scars that remain unhealed for a lifetime" on the wrongly implicated. Upholding the discharge of three men accused in a 2023 gangrape case, the court emphasized the critical need for meticulous judicial scrutiny in such sensitive matters.
The Court's Stern Observations on Public Trust
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, delivered a significant order on December 15. The judge noted that when grave allegations are made and later withdrawn without a plausible explanation, it severely undermines public confidence in the very systems designed to protect victims of sexual violence.
The court stated that the harm from false implication cannot be erased by a mere discharge order. It creates a ripple effect of doubt, where even genuine complaints may begin to be viewed with suspicion. This unfortunate scenario risks silencing true survivors, whose voices may be questioned due to the misuse of legal provisions by a few.
Case Background: From FIR to Withdrawn Statement
The case originated from an FIR registered in 2023 under Indian Penal Code sections 376 (rape) and 328 (causing hurt using poison or harmful substances to commit an offence). The complainant alleged she was lured with a job promise, taken to a flat in Noida, and sexually assaulted by three men.
Following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet. However, the trial court's decision to discharge the accused was based crucially on the woman's revised statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
In this legally significant statement, recorded voluntarily before a magistrate, the woman retracted her initial allegations. She characterized her relationship with one of the accused as consensual and exonerated the others, explicitly stating that no offence had taken place.
Legal Arguments and the Court's Final Ruling
Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar, challenging the discharge, argued that the trial court ignored detailed allegations in the FIR and a medical report noting bruises. He contended that contradictions between statements alone should not justify discharge at the charge-framing stage, and the matter deserved a full trial.
Opposing this, advocate Lokesh Kumar Mishra, representing the accused, heavily relied on the Section 164 statement. He maintained it was a voluntary, magistrate-recorded account that completely cleared his clients.
The High Court, in its ruling, found no "strong or grave suspicion" against the accused to warrant a trial. It upheld their discharge, reinforcing the principle that the legal process must protect both the rights of survivors and those accused.
The court also highlighted a crucial systemic issue: the recovery of interim compensation. It stressed that in cases where allegations are later withdrawn or found false, the interim compensation given to the complainant must be recovered. Failure to do so risks misuse of public funds and dilutes the credibility of victim compensation schemes meant for genuine survivors.
Justice Sharma poignantly equated the trauma suffered by the falsely accused to that of genuine survivors. "Loss of reputation, incarceration, social stigma, and psychological trauma... 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 order stated.
This judgment serves as a stark reminder of the judiciary's dual responsibility: to believe survivors while ensuring rigorous scrutiny to prevent the weaponization of laws, thereby preserving the integrity of the justice system for all.
