Prosecutrix vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Background
The petitioner alleged that a neighbour secretly filmed her bathing in 2016, then used the threat of circulating the video to coerce her into repeated non-consensual sexual relations and other acts, including filing for divorce from her husband. An FIR was registered under Sections 354C (voyeurism) and 376 (rape) of the IPC. During investigation, the phone allegedly used to record the video could not be recovered. A trial court discharged the accused before trial, reasoning that the video's non-recovery and the petitioner's own conduct (including filing for divorce) made her account unbelievable.
Decision Breakdown
The High Court set aside the discharge order and sent the case back for fresh consideration. It held that at the charge stage, a trial court's job is only to see whether the material raises a "grave suspicion" against the accused, not to conduct a mini-trial weighing credibility as if deciding guilt. The trial court had gone too far by disbelieving the complainant based on assumptions about how she "should" have behaved. The Court noted Section 53A of the Evidence Act bars using a victim's character or past conduct to decide questions of consent in such cases; the non-recovery of the phone was relevant but could not, on its own, kill the case before trial.
Lesson Learnt
At the charge-framing stage, courts must only check for a prima facie case and cannot dismiss a complaint by weighing the victim's credibility or character as if a full trial had already happened, and the law expressly forbids relying on a sexual assault victim's personal conduct to decide questions of consent.