STATE Vs. RADHEY SHYAM MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.1.2018, passed by learned ASJ-Special (FTC-2), (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, acquitting the respondent in Case No. 576/2017, arising out of FIR No. 622/2016 P.S. Burari for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.

(2.) The case as set up by the prosecution is based on the statement of the prosecutrix that on 20.12.2016 at about 1.00pm, she had gone to get some medicine from the clinic of a homeopathic doctor, the respondent herein. At that time, no one was present in the clinic. As per the prosecutrix, the accused took her to the patient couch behind the curtain and locked the clinic from inside and raped her. When the husband of the prosecutrix, PW-5, Ram Vilas returned home at 9.00PM, she narrated the incident to him. Since it was night time, they did not go to the P.S. to lodge a complaint against the accused. A complaint was lodged on the next day i.e., on 21.1.2016 at 10.00AM. Based on the said complaint, investigation was conducted and a charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC was framed against the accused.

(3.) After the trial was concluded, the learned trial court arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. For holding so, learned trial court opined that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and that of her husband, (PW-5) was contradictory as to the sequence of events on the relevant date, narrated by them. While the prosecutrix deposed that her husband had returned home at 9.00PM on the date of incident, her husband had stated that he came to know about the incident only at 7.00PM. However, neither of them approached the Police Station on that day or called up at 100 number or even inform the neighbours about the fact that the accused had raped the prosecutrix. Thus, the delay in making a complaint to the police, remained explained. Further, the MLC of the prosecutirx (Ex.A-3) suggested that no fresh external injury was present at the time of her external examination. The report submitted by the FSL (Ex.PW7/G) concluded that the DNA of the victim did not match with the DNA of the accused.