The Delhi High Court dismissed the State's special leave petition against an acquittal. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to the victim's inconsistent testimony and lack of corroboration from medical and forensic evidence.
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.
$~4
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP versus
NARENDER SINGH BHADANA ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER
% 11.09.2018
Crl.L.P.509/2018 Page 1 of 5
were present. She narrated the entire incident to them. Her maternal uncle then searched and located the JCLs and the unnamed accused, caught them, gave them beatings and brought them to the house of PW-1. The police was subsequently called.
Page 2 of 5
Crl.L.P.509/2018
examination, PW-1 admitted that she did not point out the house of the Respondent to the police and it was her father who showed the said house to the police. However, the rough site plan of the place of occurrence bears her thumb impression. The case of the prosecution was that the two JCLs had a pistol and knife respectively with them but on the date of incident when they were beaten up by the public no knife or pistol was recovered from them. In her complaint to the police, PW-1 spoke about eating food in the house of the Respondent but denied this in her cross-examination. She also stated in her crossexamination that she did not raise any alarm when she went with the JCLs to the house of Respondent. The mentioning by PW-1 of four persons who raped her in the house of the Respondent in her complaint was contrary to her deposition in the Court, at the instance of the APP that no one other than the Respondent and the two JCLs were at the house of the Respondent.
Page 3 of 5
Crl.L.P.509/2018
Exhibit ‘1a’ One bed sheet. Exhibit ‘1b’ One chunni. Exhibit ‘1c’ Cloth piece. Exhibit ‘1d’ Cloth piece having brown stains. Exhibit ‘1e’ Dirty baby t-shirt having brown stains. Exhibit ‘1f’ Condom.
Page 4 of 5
Crl.L.P.509/2018
was recovered from the room of the Respondent could not per se connect him with the crime particularly since none of the exhibits recovered from the room established the presence of PW1 in that room.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018
“sandeep”
Page 5 of 5
Crl.L.P.509/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Section 376D, 506 and 34 IPC.
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
NARENDER SINGH BHADANA
S.MURALIDHAR
VINOD GOEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
