Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
State - Petitioner
Versus
Soniya & Anr. - Respondents
CRL.L.P. 596 of 2019
Decided On : 27-11-2019
Criminal Leave Petition - Acquittal of Accused - Sections 323/328/346/363/376/109/120-B IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3/4/5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - The court discussed the inconsistencies in the evidence given by the prosecutrix, the lack of medical evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime, and the matrimonial discord between the prosecutrix's brother and the accused, leading to the conclusion that it would not be fair or reasonable to convict the accused based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a criminal leave petition filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused in a case involving various sections of the IPC, POCSO Act, and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The trial court had acquitted the accused based on inconsistencies in the evidence given by the prosecutrix and lack of medical evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence given by the prosecutrix was neither reliable nor inspiring confidence. It also noted the lack of medical evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime and the presence of a matrimonial discord between the prosecutrix's brother and the accused, leading to the conclusion that it would not be fair or reasonable to convict the accused based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence given by the prosecutrix, the lack of medical evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime, and the impact of the matrimonial discord on the prosecutrix's testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the inconsistencies in the evidence given by the prosecutrix, the lack of medical evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime, and the presence of a matrimonial discord between the prosecutrix's brother and the accused. These factors led the court to conclude that it would not be fair or reasonable to convict the accused based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal leave petition, upholding the acquittal of the accused based on the reasons discussed in the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J.
CRL. M.A. 39677/2019
Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing the criminal leave petition is condoned.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 596/2019
1. Present criminal leave petition has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the judgment dated 11th July, 2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge–01 (POCSO), Shadara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi acquitting the accused in FIR No. 173/2013 registered with Police Station Harsh Vihar, Delhi under Section 323/328/346/363/376/109/120-B IPC, Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3/4/5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The relevant facts as noted by the Trial Court are as under:-
“(3) In brief the prosecution case is that initially present case was registered on 07.10.2013 for offence punishable u/s 363 IPC on the statement of father of victim that his minor victim daughter aged about 15 years (name withheld) went missing since 04.10.2013 at about 6:00 p.m. All necessary efforts were made to trace the victim. On 30.11.2013 victim appeared before the police alongwith her family members and made statement. On the same day, she was got medically examined, however she had refused for her internal medical examination. Thereafter she was admitted to Ashram. On 02.12.2013, her statement was got record u/s 164 Cr.PC from Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned wherein she had levelled allegations regarding kidnapping and other heinous offense against her sister-in-law Soniya and tenant Satish s/o Mohar Singh. On the direction of Chairman, CWC, victim was re-medically examined and exhibits were seized. After discussing the case with senior police officers, offences punishable u/s 323/328/346/376/109/120B IPC, 4 POCSO Act and 3/4/5 ITP Act have been added. Further investigation has been carried out by Inspector/SHO. On 08.12.2013, accused Smt. Soniya was arrested from her maternal home. Accused Satish Kumar was arrested from Mandoli Chungi at the instance of secret informer. Accused Satish was got medically examined and exhibits were seized. Exhibits were got deposited with FSL and Result is awaited. It is also mentioned that during investigation call details record of mobile number of both accused were obtained, and on checking it is revealed that there was no conversation between both of accused. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet has been filed.
(4) Subsequently FSL Result was filed. As per same, since semen could not be detected on the exhibits of victim, DNA examination was not done.
Charge
(5) After supplying necessary copies to the accused, My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19.05.2014 charged the accused Soniya for offence punishable u/s 120B IPC and 342/376/109 IPC r/s S. 4 & 5 of ITP Act, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Satish Kumar was charged for offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC and 328.346.363/376 IPC and 4 POCSO Act, to which he also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”
3. The Trial Court by way of its impugned judgment acquitted the sister-in-law-respondent no. 1 and Satish-respondent no. 2. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“45. Firstly coming to the role of the accused Soniya......Victim had in fact went missing on 04.10.2013 as per complaint of her father and not after 2/3 days of Raksha Bandhan. Therefore said incident is falsely stated. Victim had not stated about sexual intercourse when initially she was examined by the doctor on her recovery and stated that she was raped in her own house on 03.11.2013 when she was examined after she gave statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. Therefore version of the victim is false that rape was committed upon her on the day of Raksha Bandhan.....It is quite unbelievable that wife of brother of victim i.e. Soniya would remain at her in-laws house and sent her husband to give rakhi on her behalf to her brother. The house of parents of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
