Delhi High Court
State vs Charan Singh on 26 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 26th July, 2018
+ CRL.L.P. 471/2018
STATE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the
State with ASI Krishna, PS
Mangol Puri.
versus
CHARAN SINGH ..... Respondent
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. No. 28521/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.L.P. 471/2018
1. By this petition, the State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned
judgment dated 31st March, 2018 acquitting the respondent for offences
punishable under Sections 376/328 IPC.
2. The prosecutrix in her complaint alleged that she was residing in a
rented accommodation and her husband passed away four years ago. She
had four sons. She knew one Anil Chaudhary working as a property dealer
for the last 10-12 years. Earlier also Anil Chaudhary had sold her one house.
Prosecutrix had another house in Sant Nagar, Burari which she wanted to
dispose off thus she went to the property dealer Anil Chaudhary on 2nd
February, 2016. It is alleged that Anil Chaudhary brought Barfi and one cold
drink which he gave her to eat and drink, whereafter they talked with each
other. At about 4:00 PM Anil dropped her to her house. Since she was not
fully conscious, she slept. In the morning, she came to know that Anil
Chaudhary had mixed something intoxicating in cold drink and thereafter
committed "wrong act" with her without her consent.
3. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix
stated the name of the property dealer as Shiv Charan Chaudhary @ Anil
and reiterated her allegations in the complaint. She further stated that while
she was in a state of unconsciousness she felt someone was doing something
with her. Blood was oozing out from her head. Next day when she regained
her consciousness her sister brought her to the hospital and doctor told her
that she was subjected to rape.
4. In her statement recorded before the Court she reiterated her
allegations in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also
stated that after when she drank the cold drink she felt heaviness in her head
and did not remember anything thereafter as she got unconscious. She also
did not know as to how the accused brought her home but she felt noise of
moving vehicle and so thought that accused might be taking her back. When
she woke up in the morning she found wound on her head and felt blood in
the wound. In her deposition before Court she gave the name of the accused
as Charan Singh.
5. Thus the prosecutrix in her three statements has taken three different
names of the accused. In the complaint he was named as Anil Chaudhary, in
the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he was named as Charan
Singh [email protected] Anil and in the deposition before the Court he was
named as Charan Singh.
6. No evidence was collected by the prosecution to connect that Charan
Singh the accused before the Court was also known as Anil Chaudhary or
Charan Singh Chaudhary. Even in her deposition the prosecutrix did not
clarify the name of the accused.
7. As noted above though in her complaint she stated that she talked to
the accused till 4'O clock even after having the sweet and the cold drink,
however, in statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in the Court
she said that after having the cold drink she felt heaviness and did not
remember anything. Further blood was oozing out of wound from the head
on the next day morning. Thus the injury on the head could not be prior to
4'O clock on the previous day because blood was not be continuously
oozing out till the next morning, as the blood has the tendency to clot
immediately. Further even if blood had oozed out then her other cloths and
the bed sheets would have already been blood stains which is not the case of
the prosecution.
8. The basis on which the prosecutrix alleges that rape was committed
on her is medical examination. She states that the doctor told her that she
was raped. The MLC of the prosecutrix only stated hymen to be torn which
would be otherwise as the prosecutrix had given birth to four children. As
per the FSL report no stupefying substance was found in the blood of the
prosecutrix. Further FSL also does not confirm presence of semen in the
swabs of the prosecutrix much less identifying the said semen to be that of
the respondent.
9. Considering the evidence of identification being not cogent and
improvements in the testimony of the prosecutrix, further the FSL report not
connecting the respondent to the offence committed, the learned Trial Court
rightly acquitted the respondent, thus the impugned judgment of acquittal
warrants no interference.
10. Leave to appeal petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 26, 2018
'yo'
