The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for caution in evaluating the victim's testimony in rape cases, the need for corroboration, and the distinction between consent and submission. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of examining the veracity and credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2019/14.11.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2018, State Vs. Dr. Anis Kumar Bharti, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC, Haridwar. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 (2) (e) and Section 506 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-

(i) Under Section 376 (2) (e) IPC- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(ii) Under Section 506 IPC- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The victim, aged about 33 years was working in some establishment at Haridwar. In a rail accident, she had lost both of her legs, below knee. She would use a three-wheeler scooty for her movements. At the relevant time, the appellant was working in a hospital at Haridwar. On 26.07.2017, the victim visited the appellant for her medical check-up. She was given medicines by the appellant and she was again called on 30.07.2017. On 30.07.2017, again, when the victim visited the appellant, the appellant indulged in some conversation revealing that he is unmarried and he proposed the victim. He again called the victim on 31.07.2017, after 02:00 p.m., as the OPD closes at 02:00 p.m.

3. On 31.07.2017, again the victim visited the appellant. The appellant proposed her and told that in case they establish physical relation, it would not be bad because ultimately they are going to be married. On that date, at 03:00 p.m., the appellant coaxed the victim and did “Galat Kaam” with her. This, the appellant repeated on 06.08.2017 in the hospital. On that date, he also made a video. Thereafter on multiple occasions, he did “Galat Kaam” with the victim. On 09.09.2017, the victim asked the appellant for marriage, but he evaded those queries of the victim. Finally, the victim revealed the incidents to her father, who approached the police on 11.09.2017. When nothing happened, he moved an application on 13.09.20217 under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), based on which Case Crime No. 554 of 2017 under Sections 376(2)(e) and 506 was lodged at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar. The investigation was carried out. The victim was medically examined on 09.10.2017 by PW 10 Dr. Neelima. In the column of history, the medical examination report reveals that at that time, the victim revealed it to the doctor that she was in a relationship with the appellant for the last one and a half months; they established physical relations four times.

4. On 13.10.2017, the victim was examined under Section 164 of the Code. The vaginal swabs were taken and in pathology report nothing was detected. Certain articles were also taken by the Investigating Officer (“IO”) for forensic examination, but semen or blood could not be detected on these articles, as per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report. The IO prepared the site plan of the clinic of the appellant as well as of his flat, where, according to the prosecution case, on 12.08.2017, the appellant raped the victim.

5. After investigation charge sheet under Sections 376(2)(e), 312, 506 IPC was filed.

6. On 11.04.2018, charge under Sections 376(2)(e), 312 and 506 IPC was framed. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, namely, PW 1, father of the victim, PW 2, the victim, PW 3 Constable 1507 Satendra Kumar, PW 4 SI Satendra Negi, PW 5 Dr. Poonam Pandey, PW 6 Constable 356 Jasruddin Khan, PW 7 Paras Dhiman, PW 8 Tanisha, PW 9 SI Sandeepa Bhandari and PW 10 Dr. Neelima.

8. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code. According to the appellant, the victim has falsely deposed against him. He is already married having two children. He was appointed as the Man