Charge framing is where a criminal trial takes its shape, and it is not a stage reserved for the prosecution and the accused alone. In Prosecutrix R v. State of NCT of Delhi (CRL.REV.P. 410/2017, decided on 17 September 2026), the Delhi High Court entertained a revision by the victim herself against the order on charge in a case involving rape and POCSO Act offences, and partly allowed it — adding a charge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against one accused while declining to disturb the discharge of another. The judgment of Justice Saurabh Banerjee is a careful illustration of how charge-stage scrutiny works accused by accused and section by section.
The case
The FIR of 2016 alleged that a school-going minor was forced into a vehicle, made to consume beer, taken to a room and raped, and then threatened that videos would be circulated to defame her. The investigation invoked provisions of the IPC (including Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506), the POCSO Act (Sections 6, 8 and 12, with Section 14(3) alleged in respect of recording), and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. When the trial court passed its order on charge, the victim was dissatisfied with what had been left out — and carried a revision to the High Court, which travelled under Sections 397/401 CrPC read with Section 482.
What the High Court did
Charge added
Against the accused who knew the victim — he was acquainted with her, had described her as his girlfriend, and was alleged to have used casteist remarks — the Court found prima facie material of knowledge of her caste identity, and directed that a charge under Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act be framed.
Discharge upheld
For the co-accused, the Court found no material whatsoever indicating that he was acquainted with the victim or aware of her caste identity. His discharge under the SC/ST Act provisions was sustained — the same incident, but a different evidentiary footing.
Charges refused
The plea for a charge of administering a stupefying substance failed because it rested on a bare statement with no substantive basis, and the Section 14(3) POCSO discharge stood because no video was ever recovered despite the allegation.
Accused-by-accused, section-by-section
The judgment is a working demonstration of a principle that is easy to state and hard to apply: criminal liability is individual. A charge under a special statute like the SC/ST Act carries its own ingredients — for Section 3(1)(w), the offender's knowledge of the victim's caste identity is part of the offence — and those ingredients must be shown against each accused separately. The material that justified the charge against one respondent (acquaintance, admission of a relationship, alleged casteist remarks) simply did not exist against the other. Courts at the charge stage neither demand proof beyond reasonable doubt nor accept bald assertion; they ask whether the record, taken at its highest, raises grave suspicion for the specific charge against the specific person.
The victim's statements and their weight
The Court also addressed the weight of the victim's successive statements, observing that additions made by the affected party over time must be given due weightage and cannot simply be discarded unless there are contradictions in them. That observation matters in sexual offence cases, where disclosure is often gradual. At the same time, the refusal of the drugging charge shows the limit: weightage is not a substitute for some supporting material where the statute requires it.
Why this matters in practice
For victims: the order on charge is not the end of the road. A discharge or an omitted section can be challenged in revision, and precise, early identification of what material supports which ingredient is what wins such petitions.
For the defence: discharge submissions should be built ingredient-wise. Where a special-statute charge requires knowledge or intent, the absence of any material on that element is a complete answer, as the upheld discharge here shows.
For both sides: charge-stage revisions in decade-old FIRs are a reality of Delhi practice. This revision arose from a 2017 charge order; the High Court's decision reshapes the trial nearly a decade after the FIR.
The BNSS frame going forward
For offences registered on or after 1 July 2024, the same architecture operates under the new codes: the revisional jurisdiction corresponding to Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is found in Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, and the inherent power corresponding to Section 482 CrPC in Section 528 BNSS. The substantive discipline — each charge tested against each accused on the material actually collected — is unchanged, and this judgment will serve as a useful reference for it.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a victim challenge the order framing charges?
Yes. A victim aggrieved by discharge of an accused or by non-framing of a particular charge can invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court or the High Court. Revisional review at charge stage is limited — the question is whether the material on record discloses grave suspicion for the charge sought — but it is a real remedy, and in this case it produced an additional charge.
What did the Court require for the SC/ST Act charge?
Knowledge of the victim's caste identity. Against the accused who was acquainted with the victim, had himself described her as his girlfriend, and was alleged to have used casteist remarks, the Court found prima facie material for Section 3(1)(w). Against the co-accused, there was no material showing acquaintance or awareness of her caste, so his discharge under the SC/ST Act was upheld.
Why were some charges refused despite allegations?
Because an allegation must have some substantive basis in the material collected. The Court declined a charge of administering a stupefying substance where there was only a bare statement with nothing to support it, and upheld discharge under Section 14(3) POCSO where the alleged video was never recovered. Charge framing tests the record, not the rhetoric.
Does this reasoning apply under the new criminal codes?
Yes. For FIRs registered on or after 1 July 2024, the same exercise proceeds under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the BNSS — the revisional remedy now flows from Sections 438 and 442 BNSS (corresponding to Sections 397 and 401 CrPC). The charge-stage standard of grave suspicion is unchanged.