CRL.REV.P. 527/2026 $~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010418512026 + CRL.REV.P. 527/2026, CRL.M.A. 27486/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27487/2026 ROHIT KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D. K. Tiwari and Mr. Gopesh Tripathi, Advs. versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP SI Deepali Chhabra, Ps Rajouri Garden CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking setting aside of the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the learned ASJ-07 (POCSO), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in SC No.162/2026 arising out of FIR No.24/2026 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, District West, Delhi whereby charges were directed to be framed against the petitioner under Sections 65(2), 127(2) and 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). The petitioner was, however, discharged of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:45:29 CRL.REV.P. 527/2026 offence under Section 137(2) of BNS. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2026, the petitioner visited the premises where the victim resided to see a vacant room available on rent. On 16.01.2026, at about 5:00 PM, the victim, aged about ten years and ten months, returned home from a nearby park to use the bathroom. It is alleged that the petitioner was standing outside the bathroom and, upon her coming out, covered her mouth and forcibly took her to a room on the terrace, where he confined her and committed physical and penetrative sexual assault upon her. The petitioner allegedly fled when the victims’ elder sister arrived. The victim was medically examined that evening, and the FIR was registered on 17.01.2026. Her statement under Section 183 BNSS was also recorded on 17.01.2026. Upon completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to give due consideration to the medical evidence. It is submitted that despite specific allegations of repeated slapping, biting and penetrative sexual assault, the medical examination conducted on the date of the alleged incident did not reveal corresponding injuries on the victim’s person or genitalia. Though the absence of injuries is not, by itself, conclusive, it is contended that this circumstance required consideration along with the other material on record. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the call detail records do not establish the petitioner’s presence at the place of occurrence. That his mobile phone remained non-operational from 11:36 AM to 6:09 PM on 16.01.2026, whereas the incident allegedly occurred between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in drawing an inference that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:45:29 CRL.REV.P. 527/2026 phone had been deliberately switched off to conceal his presence. It is further submitted that his presence at the premises on the preceding day, by itself, could not establish his involvement in the incident. 6. It is further submitted that there are material variations between the victims’ initial account and her subsequent statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, particularly with regard to the physical assault and the manner of alleged penetration, which were not duly considered by the learned Trial Court. 7. Learned counsel lastly submits that the aforesaid circumstances, arising from the prosecution’s own material, ought to have been considered cumulatively while examining whether the ingredients of the alleged offences were prima facie made out. The petitioner, therefore, seeks setting aside of the impugned order. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the material placed on record. 9. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to examine whether the material raises a prima facie case or grave suspicion against the accused. A detailed appreciation of the evidence or determination of its probative value is neither warranted nor permissible at this stage. 10. In the present case, the victim has specifically attributed the acts of confinement, physical assault and penetrative sexual assault to the petitioner. The alleged variations between her initial account and the subsequent statement under Section 183 of the BNSS do not, at this stage, dislodge the substratum of the prosecution case. Whether such variations amount to material improvements affecting her credibility is a matter to be tested during trial and cannot form the basis for discharge at this stage. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:45:29 CRL.REV.P. 527/2026 11. Similarly, the absence of corresponding injuries in the MLC cannot, by itself, negate the specific allegation of penetrative sexual assault. The medical evidence has to be considered along with the remaining prosecution material and its evidentiary value can appropriately be examined during trial. The contention regarding the absence of injuries, therefore, does not warrant interference with the order framing charge. 12. As regards the CDR, the petitioner’s mobile phone remained non- operational during the relevant period. Though this circumstance, by itself, may not justify an inference that the phone was deliberately switched off to conceal his presence, it equally does not establish that the petitioner was elsewhere at the relevant time. The impugned order also records that the statements of public witnesses Vinod Kumar and Atul Kumar under Section 180 BNSS corroborate the petitioner’s presence at the place of occurrence on 15.01.2026 as well as on 16.01.2026 at the relevant time. The CDR, therefore, cannot be treated as exculpatory material sufficient to outweigh the other material relied upon by the prosecution. 13. Thus, the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner essentially require appreciation of the credibility of the victim, the medical evidence and the other material collected during investigation, which would amount to conducting a mini-trial at the stage of charge. 14. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:45:29 CRL.REV.P. 527/2026 17. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/PG This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/09/2026 at 11:45:29