The High Court has observed that if two views are possible and one of the views gives rise to suspicion only as distinct, from grave suspicion, the Court would be empowered to discharge accused at that stage.

In a gang rape case, the trial court in the impugned order after the perusal of the record found that there was no mention of the name of respondent no. 2 in the first version of the prosecutrix, which was given on 29.03.2014. It is only in her subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. that she stated that Ralia sent her to his friend at Kalkaji. However, once again no name of that individual was given. 10. In her subsequent statement she had alleged that the said individual was Man Mohan. Ralia during his interrogation had stated that his friend in Kalkaji is named Dr. Narender Mohan – respondent no. 2 herein.

High Court observed “Perusal of the record does not even raise grave suspicion in so far as the respondent no. 2 is concerned for framing of charge. Supreme Court in State Vs. Arun Kumar & Anr. 2014 SCC Online SC 1018 has held that even at the stage of charge, if two views are possible and one of the views gives rise to suspicion only as distinct, from grave suspicion, the Court would be empowered to discharge accused at that stage”.

High Court further observed “There is no medical or forensic evidence available against respondent no. 2, no TIP has been conducted and there is no identification of respondent no. 2 nor is he named in any statement made by the prosecutrix. There is nothing to show that respondent –Narender Mohan is the individual who is named as Man Mohan by the prosecutrix in her supplementary statement. Even otherwise the allegations against respondent no. 2 are completely vague and unsubstantiated. The version given by the prosecutrix is ex-facie unreliable and does not give rise to suspicion leave alone grave suspicion against respondent no. 2”.

High Court then held “In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the view taken by the trial court that there is no prima facie case made out against respondent no. 2. In my view, the trial court has ‘on correct appreciation of the material on record’ discharged respondent no. 2”.