State v. Rakesh
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court set aside the trial court's discharge order in a POCSO case where DNA evidence and medical reports supported the prosecution case despite variances in statements.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order of discharge is set aside. The matter is directed to be listed before the concerned court on 15.01.2020.
What the court decided
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 291/2018
Date of Decision: 09.12.2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP.
versus
RAKESH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dushyant Chaudhary and Mr.
Jaiveer, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
- The present revision petition has been filed by the State assailing the impugned order of discharge dated 15.12.2017 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No. 37/2017 arising out of FIR No.55/2013 registered U/s 363/376 IPC read with Section 3 & 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Vivek Vihar.
- Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned APP for the State has submitted that the impugned order was passed only on the basis of variance between the Crl. Rev. P. 291/2018 Page 1 of 6
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the discharge of the respondent was a grave error considering the DNA evidence and medical report supporting the prosecution case.
Whether the principle of strong suspicion at the stage of framing of charges was satisfied in the present case.
Whether the trial court erred in discharging the accused without appreciating the Medical Lab Certified report and FSL report.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
State
- respondent
Rakesh
Coram
Manoj Kumar Ohri
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court