The judgment emphasizes the need for corroborative evidence and the onus on the prosecution to annul and reverse the presumption of innocence in cases of reversal of acquittal.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. This is an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and order dated 26.04.2014 passed by the learned MM (Mahila Court), District Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in case FIR No. 01/2013 under Sections 323/341/354/506/509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, whereby the respondent was acquitted.

2. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP for State submits that the appeal has been filed precisely on the following two grounds:

(i) Learned Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that it was not essential for the complainant/victim to get herself medically examined to prove the alleged scratch mark near her chest and therefore, the acquittal is bad in law. In support of the said contention, learned APP relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 III AD SC 260, wherein it was held that oral evidence has to get primacy as medical evidence is based on opinion and can be rebutted at any stage.

(ii) That the minor contradictions in the statement of the complainant/victim regarding the exact place of injury on her body and the date, time and place of the said incident not having been correctly disclosed by the complainant/victim should not be taken as a reason for acquittal.

3. Learned APP submits that the aforesaid two primary issues were not considered by the learned MM, resulting in the passing of the impugned order.

4. Learned APP also submits that apart from the oral testimony of the complainant/victim, the evidence of the mother also reiterated and supported the allegations made by the complainant/victim.

5. The evidence of the complainant/victim is placed at page 34 of the present appeal.

6. Learned APP has read the examination-in-chief as also the cross-examination of the complainant/victim, to submit that the complainant/victim had also been cross-examined in material particulars and therefore, the minor incidents of medical examination not being conducted as also not remembering the date, time and place of the said occurrence, are not instances, which would entitle the respondent for acquittal.

7. Learned APP submits that in all material particulars, the complainant/victim as also her mother had corroborated the stand taken by the complainant/victim. In fact, learned APP submits that even mother of the complainant/victim also corroborated the allegations in material particulars and stated in her deposition that when she had objected to the misbehavior of the respondent, the respondent had started abusing both of them in filthy language in the street and started quarreling with them. In view of the fact that the mother of the complainant/victim has also supported allegations made by the complainant/victim, learned APP submits that there was enough evidence on record of the learned Trial Court to have convicted the respondent and not acquit him.

8. Per Contra, Mr. Narendra Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent draws attention of this Court to not only the examination-in-chief of the complainant/victim but also to cross-examination, whereby the complainant/victim had admitted that she had refused to undergo the medical examination.

9. Learned counsel submits that during the cross-examination, it was elicited from the complainant/victim that the alleged injury was suffered near the neck and not on the chest, as alleged. In fact, during the cross-examination, as placed before this Court, it is clearly mentioned that the witness had pointed below her neck but above her chest and showed the place where she suffered the injury.

10. Learned counsel submits that she had also contradicted herself in respect of the place, date and time of the occurrence, leaving any amount of doubt as to whether any such incident had ever happened. Learned counsel also pointed out to the fact that the complainant/victim had a