Single judge dismissed the State's leave petition challenging an acquittal. The court found no illegality, as the trial court correctly appreciated evidence, noting inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statement and lack of corroborative material to prove the rape charge.
Leave petition dismissed; Order copy to be sent to Trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~1 *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
DECIDED ON : 7th MARCH, 2018 + CRL.L.P. 35/2011 STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP with SI Jagdish.
versus
DEEPAK BHATIYA ..... Respondent Through : None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A.No. 794/2011 (Delay)
Crl.L.P.35/2011 Page 1 of 4
Crl.L.P.35/2011 Page 2 of 4
material witnesses was taken as lapse on the part of the prosecution. No plausible explanation was offered as to why the material prosecution witnesses i.e. respondent’s wife who had allegedly taken the prosecutrix to her home from Golden Temple, Amritsar and Sunil @ Sonu, one of the suspects, were not examined during investigation and not cited as witnesses. Recovery of the prosecutrix at the house of the respondent is suspect. The prosecutrix remained in the respondent’s house for around 20 days. At no stage she raised alarm for alleged forcible rape by the respondent. It has come on record that the respondent occupied one room accommodation and lived there along with his wife and son. The prosecutrix though had liberty to use mobile and have conversation with several individuals during her stay at the respondent’s house did not contact her parents to inform her whereabouts. During this period, she had travelled at different places and had made telephone calls. The victim’s father had travelled along with the police at several places on the basis of the calls made by her to find her out but she could not be traced. At the time of her recovery, she did not exhibit any abnormal conduct. No fresh injuries were found on her body at the time of her medical examination. She did not disclose the examining doctor as to who was the perpetrator of the crime. Apparently, the prosecutrix has not presented true facts. It was not elaborated as to how she had travelled alone from Delhi to Amritsar for stay at Golden Temple. The Trial Court rightly noted that the prosecutrix was not expected to leave the Golden Temple accommodation of her own and to accompany the respondent’s wife, a stranger to her house on her asking. The statement of the prosecutrix
Crl.L.P.35/2011 Page 3 of 4
remained uncorroborated. The prosecutrix did not give details as to how and when she was defiled by the respondent. The prosecution was unable to prove its case by clinching evidence. Physical relationship, if any, seemingly was with consent.
the order.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 07, 2018 / tr
Crl.L.P.35/2011 Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient and compelling reasons exist to grant leave to the State to appeal against an acquittal.
Whether the trial court committed an error in acquitting the respondent given discrepancies in the evidence.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Deepak Bhatiya
S. P. Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
