The Delhi High Court has said that false rape allegations can inflict lifetime scars on the accused, while calling for “close scrutiny” in such cases.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that false allegations of rape have far-reaching consequences not only for complainants but also for those accused. “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 court said.
The observations were made in a case in which a woman had accused three men of gang rape after meeting them on the pretext of being offered a job. During trial proceedings, however, she withdrew her statements.
The judge noted that false rape cases also harm genuine survivors. “When serious allegations are made and then withdrawn without explanation, it weakens public confidence in the process meant to protect survivors of sexual violence.
The unfortunate result is that women who have truly suffered such crimes may find their voices questioned or their experiences doubted,” the court said. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Delhi Police against a trial court order discharging all three accused.
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.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the foundational basis of the prosecution case stood substantially eroded. Proceeding to trial in the absence of any grave suspicion would amount to subjecting the accused to an unwarranted prosecution. The Court therefore found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s decision to discharge the accused and declined to interfere.
It emphasised that while the Court is not required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence, it must nonetheless determine whether the material on record discloses a strong or grave suspicion against the accused. Where the material itself negates such suspicion, discharge would be justified.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court noted that although the prosecutrix initially made detailed allegations of gang rape in her complaint and medical history, she subsequently gave a categorical statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, exonerating all the accused persons. In that statement, she had asserted that her physical relationship with accused was consensual and that the other accused persons, who were present along with their respective girlfriends, had not committed any wrongdoing. She had further stated that she did not wish to pursue the complaint.
The Court also expressed concern over instances where interim compensation granted under victim compensation schemes is not recovered even when allegations are withdrawn or found to be false. After examining the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, and the Standard Operating Procedures framed thereunder, the Court emphasised the need for effective enforcement of recovery provisions to alleged victims of the raos cases turns out to be false.
