SUNIL Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-2020-9-193
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 24,2020

SUNIL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellant has filed the present appeal, inter alia, impugning a judgment dtd. 25/7/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant also impugns the order dtd. 25/7/2017, whereby the petitioner was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.75,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
(2.)The impugned judgment was rendered in connection with a case arising from FIR No. 156/07 under Sec. 376 of the IPC registered with PS Sultan Puri. The said FIR was registered at the instance of a young married woman (hereafter Ms 'A'). She alleged that she, along with her infant, came to stay at her sister's home and her brother-in-law (the appellant herein) raped her on 27/1/2007, while her sister was away at work. Ms A went back to her house the same evening with her husband and after deliberating, they reported the matter to the police on 29/1/2007.
(3.)Ms A was medically examined at about 11:55 pm on 29/1/2007. The MLC records that she had reported that she had been assaulted by her sister's husband on 27/1/2007. The MLC also records that Ms A had stated that she had not taken a bath and had not changed her undergarments since the incident. The MLC indicates that Ms A had no injury on her body. It also records that on a general examination, there were no signs of any struggle. Her 'High Vaginal Swab' (hereafter 'HVS') was taken and the said swab along with the undergarments were sealed and handed over to W/Ct. Sandhya (who was examined as PW3). PW 3 had testified that she had taken Ms A to SGM Hospital for her medical examination and thereafter, two sealed pullandas and one sample seal of the hospital were given by the doctor and were received by her. She had also signed the MLC as acknowledgement of having received the two pullandas. She identified her signatures on the MLC (Ex.PW3/A).


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.