[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Shrawan vs State on 21 January, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 19.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 21.01.2026
+ CRL.A. 669/2018
SHRAWAN .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Sagarika Kaul Advocate (Amicus
Curiae)
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.PC.) the appellant, the sole
accused, in S.C. No. 249/2017 on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), South-West, Dwarka
Courts, New Delhi, challenges the judgment dated
09.05.2018 and the order on sentence dated 16.05.2018 as
per which, he has been convicted and sentenced for the
offences punishable under Section 376 and Section 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on 27.01.2017 at about 5.00 PM,
the appellant/accused, on the pretext of delivering food,
entered the house ofPW1, i.e., House No. D-105, Bindapur
Gaon, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, committed penetrative
sexual assault on her and threatened her with the dire
consequences in case she revealed the incident to others.
3. On the basis of Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1, given on
27.01.2017, crime No. 64/2017, Police Station Bindapur, i.e.,
Ex. PW8/B FIR was registered by PW8, ASI Ramesh Chand,
on 27.01.2017 at around 9:38 P.M. PW11, Woman Sub-
Inspector, conducted investigation into the crime and on
completion of the same, submitted charge-sheet dated
11.04.2017 alleging commission of the offences punishable
under Section 376 and Section 506 IPC.
4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the
copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both
sides, the trialcourt as per order dated 09.05.2017, framed a
charge under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, which was read over
and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined
and Exhibits PW1/A-F, PW3/A, PW6/A, PW8/A-D, PW9/A,
PW10/A, and PW11/A-H were marked in support of the
case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was
questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused denied all
those circumstances and maintained his innocence.
According to the accused, he has been falsely implicated in
the case at the instance of PW1's husband's brother (PW2)
and his wife (Jethani) as PW2 lost his job on the complaint
made by the father of theaccused. He alsosubmitted that the
relationship was consensual.
7. After questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC.,
compliance of Section 232 Cr.PC. was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232
Cr.PC. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-
compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate
the proceedings unless omission to comply with the same is
shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to
the accused (see Moidu K. versus State of Kerala, 2009 (3)
KHC 89; 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on
hand, the accused has no case that noncompliance of Section
232 Cr.PC. has caused any prejudice to him.
8. In defence, the accused examined DW1, a factory worker,
who deposed that he knew the appellant/accused through his
father, with whom he had earlier worked, and was also
acquainted with PW2 and his wife. DW1 testified that on two
to three occasions he had seen PW1 and the accused together
when PW1 used to take PW2's children from school, and that
he had even seen them holding hands.
9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and
after hearing both sides, the trialcourt, vide the impugned
judgment and order on sentencefound the accused guilty of
the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and
accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 7 years under Section 376 IPC and to fine of
₹5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for 30 days as well as to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the
offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and to fine of
₹1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to simple
imprisonment for 30 days. The sentences have been directed
to run concurrently. Benefit under Section 428 Cr.PC has
also been granted. Compensation of ₹5,00,000/- has been
directed to be paid to PW1. Aggrieved, the accused has come
up in appeal.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that there has been a misappreciation of
material evidence by the trial court.Based on Ex. PW9/A
FSL report dated 23.03.2017, and the testimony of PW9, no
opinion could be given that the injuries seen on the face of
the accused were inflicted by nails of PW1, and therefore the
finding that such injuries corroborate the version of PW1 is
erroneous.
10.1. It was further urged that PW10, in her cross-examination,
admitted that no signs of forcible sexual intercourse were
observed on PW1. The learned counsel further submitted that
although the trial court noted prior acquaintance between
PW1 and the accused, it wrongly rejected the defence plea of
consensual relationship.
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that PW1 in all her statements has
categorically stated that the accused committed penetrative
sexual assault on her and the testimony of PW2and PW5
corroborates her version. It was submitted that the medical
evidence and scientific evidence corroborates the prosecution
case. It was also submitted that there are no materials on
record indicating that physical relations between the accused
and PW1 was consensual. Further, the defence of false
implication has not been proved.
12. Heard both sides and perused the records.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether, though the factum of physical
relationship between the appellant/accused and PW1 stands
established, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the act was non-consensual, so as to sustain the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
14. I shall first briefly refer to the evidence on record relied
on by the prosecution in support of the case. The incident in
this case is alleged to have taken place on 27.01.2017 at
about 5.00 PM at House No. B-105, Bindapur, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi. In Ext. PW1/A FIS, PW1 has stated thus:She was
residing with her husband in a rented house at the stated
address. Her husband was working in a factory at Bindapur.
On 27.01.2017, she was alone at home. At about 5.00 PM,
while the door of the house was closed and she was watching
television, the accused, residing in the neighbourhood,
knocked at the door. On opening the door and enquiring
about the purpose of his visit, the accused informed her that
her sister-in-law had sent "chowmein"(noodles) for her. On
this pretext, the accused forcibly entered the room and bolted
the door from inside. PW1 deposed that the accused started
using force upon her and, when she resisted, threatened her
with death if she raised any alarm. He forcibly threw her on
the bed and, when she attempted to scream, gagged her
mouth with his hand. The accused thereafter raped her. While
leaving the house, the accused threatened her that if she
disclosed the incident to anyone or reported the matter to the
police, he would kill her and her family members. After the
accused left, PW1 immediately went to the factory where her
husband was working and narrated the entire incident to him.
14.1. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ext. PW1/C,
recorded on 28.01.2017, PW1 has stated that on the accused
knocking at the door, she slightly opened it and enquired
about the purpose of his visit, whereupon he stated that her
sister had sent "chowmein" (noodles). She refused to accept
the same and told him that her sister would herself come and
give it. When she attempted to close the door, the accused
pushed her forcefully, causing her to fall down, and before
she could get up, he bolted the door from inside. PW1 stated
that she screamed loudly, but due to the machines running
downstairs, no one could hear her. She further stated that the
accused threatened to stab her in the stomach with a knife if
she raised an alarm, gagged her mouth by stuffing a cloth
into it, and tightly held both her hands when she tried to free
herself. She stated that she managed to break free and
attempted to run to pick up her phone, but the accused
snatched the phone from her hand and threw it away.
Thereafter, the accused made her lie down on the bed and
raped her. PW1 further stated that the accused was wearing a
white shirt which had bloodstains on it and that he was
bleeding from his face as she had scratched him. She stated
that the accused wiped the blood that had fallen on the floor
and, while leaving, threatened that if she disclosed the
incident to anyone, he would not spare anyone, particularly
her.
14.2. PW1, when examined before the trialcourt reiterated her case
in the FIS and Section 164 statement. She denied having an
affair with the accused or that prior to the incident she had
been in a consensual physical relationship with the accused.
She denied having written letters to the accused or regularly
calling him on the phone.
14.3. PW2, the brother-in-law of PW1, deposed that at about 5.00-
5.30 PM, PW1 came to his place of work weeping and, on
enquires, disclosed that the accused had raped her. In his
cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he was working in the
factory of one Monu and that the father of the accused had
also been working there till about 10 to 15 days prior to the
incident. He admitted that he was removed from service by
the owner and claimed that the same was at the instance of
the accused's father. He denied the suggestion that he was
removed from service on account of theft of copper from the
factory or that the father of the accused had informed the
owner in this regard, or that he harboured any grudge against
the accused or his family. PW2 admitted that he and his
family had shifted to the house where the incident occurred
about 5 to10 days prior to the date of incident and that earlier
they were residing in a room in the factory premises, where
he lived on the ground floor, while the accused and his father
were residing on the upper floor. He denied that during this
period PW1 and the accused had come into contact or
developed familiarity. He admitted that the families were
known to each other as they resided in the same building and
worked in the same factory, and that on the day of the
incident at about 11.00-11.30 AM, the accused had come to
his room for food. PW2 denied that the accused was beaten
when apprehended and also denied the suggestion that the
relations between PW1 and the accused were consensual or
that a false case had been lodged at his or his wife's instance.
14.4. PW9, Dr. Jatin Bodwal, Specialist, Department of Forensic
Medicine, DDU Hospital, deposed that on 22.03.2017 an
application along with the MLC of the accused was
submitted to him seeking an opinion as to whether the
injuries noted therein could have been caused by the nails of
PW1. Upon perusal of MLC No. 883/17 of the accused, PW9
opined that, in view of the nature of the injuries, it was not
possible to comment whether the same were inflicted by
nails. His report has been marked as Ex. PW9/A. In his
cross-examination, PW9 stated that he had not personally
examined the accused and that the opinion was rendered
solely on the basis of the MLC.
14.5. PW10, Dr. Madhu, Senior Resident (Gynaecology), DDU
Hospital, deposed that she was acquainted with the
handwriting and signatures of Dr. Mitali Mahapatra, who had
prepared the MLC of PW1, who had since left the services of
the hospital. PW10 identified the signatures of Dr. Mitali
Mahapatra on the MLC of PW1, which was marked as Ex.
PW1/B. She further deposed that as per the MLC, the
requisite samples of PW1 were collected and handed over to
the police. PW10 further stated that no signs of forcible
sexual intercourse were observed on PW1 and that though a
small linear abrasion was noted on the left wrist, it has not
been specified whether the same was fresh or old and could
not be definitively linked to sexual assault.
15. As per the MLC of PW1 (Ex. PW1/B), a small linear abrasion
measuring about 1 cm was noted on the medial aspect of her
left wrist. No other fresh injuries were found on her person.
The absence of multiple injuries on PW1, by itself, is not
decisive and has to be appreciated in the backdrop of the
manner in which the incident is alleged to have occurred.
Also, the accused was medically examined vide MLC Ex.
PW6/A. The said MLC records superficial abrasions on the
face of the accused, including on the forehead, near the nose,
jaw, neck and inside the upper lip. PW1 has consistently stated
that she attempted to resist the assault during which attempt,
she has also scratched the face of the accused with her nails.
The presence of multiple superficial injuries on the face of the
accused, for which no explanation has been offered by the
accused, lends assurance to the version of PW1 that she did
resist the assault.
16. It is true that PW10, the doctor, deposed that no signs of
forcible sexual intercourse were observed on PW1. Offence of
rape is not a medical condition. It is not a diagnosis to be
made by a medical expert, who examines the victim. Rape is
an offence defined under Section 375 IPC, and it is a legal
term. It is for the court to decide on the basis of the materials
on record, whether the act of the accused constitutes rape as
defined in Section 375 IPC. (See Kunjumon Vs. State of
Kerala, 2011 (4) KHC 72 : 2011 (2) KLD 555)
17. Further, it is well settled that absence of injuries on the body
of the prosecutrix does not ipso facto lead to an inference of
consent. PW1 has consistently stated that she was threatened
with death, gagged and restrained. Her testimony has not been
discredited any way. Therefore, absence of injuries on PW1
does not detract from the prosecution case. The FSL reports
(Ex. PW11/H-1 and PW11/H-2) conclusively establish that the
DNA profile of the accused was detected in the vaginal,
cervical and vulval swabs of PW1. The accused has not
disputed the FSL result and has admitted physical relation
with PW1, taking the plea that the same was consensual. Thus,
the factum of sexual intercourse stands established beyond
dispute. The only issue that survives is whether the act was
consensual or forcible.
18. Much emphasis was laid by the defence on the alleged
acquaintance between PW1 and the accused. PW1 deposed
that she had come to Delhi only 10 to 12 days prior to the
incident and that the accused had accompanied her husband on
one occasion and had visited the house in the morning on the
date of the incident. Mere acquaintance or casual interaction
cannot be equated with consent for sexual intercourse. There
is no evidence on record to show any prior intimacy or
romantic relationship between PW1 and the accused.
Significantly, PW1's conduct immediately thereafter of,
rushing to her family members and lodging a complaint with
the police on the very same day--clearly establishes that the
act was not consensual.
19. Also, it is important to note that the plea of false implication at
the instance of PW2 and his wife also does not inspire
confidence. If there had been such animosity, the accused
would not have continued visiting the house of PW2 or
accompanying his family members as revealed from the
materials on record. The conduct of the accused is inconsistent
with the defence adopted.
20. The defence sought to establish consent by examining DW1,
who claimed to have seen PW1 and the accused together on a
few occasions. Though PW1 was alleged to have written
letters and made calls to the accused, there are no materials to
substantiate the same.
21. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgement, calling
for an interference by this Court.
22. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 21, 2026/RN
