A Delhi court has cleared a doctor of the charge of raping his patient as the FIR was lodged after a delay of 20 hours and the prosecution witness did not turn up in court, leaving the victim's statement uncorroborated.
The court said that the survivor, who had alleged that the incident took place on 4 December 2012, lodged a complaint the next day after about 20 hours, to which there was “no explanation”.
The court noted that as per the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report, the DNA of the accused did not match with that of the semen found from the survivor’s clothes.
It also called suspicious the claims of the survivor, who had alleged that she was raped after giving sedatives, as the syringes and injections which were sent for forensic test were reported by FSL to be non-intoxicating.
“It is pertinent to mention that some of the injections and syringes were seized from the dustbin. As the injections and used syringes were not found to be intoxicant, the version of the prosecutrix that she became senseless after giving of two injections by the accused, becomes suspicious.”Additional Sessions Judge Umed Singh Grewal
“The prosecution could not produce the other star witness namely Ram Niwas in the witness box and due to that reason, version of the prosecutrix remained uncorroborated,” the judge said.
According to the survivor complaint, on 4 December 2012, she had visited the clinic of the accused for treating abdominal pain, however, the doctor allegedly gave her two injections after which she became unconscious.
The survivor had alleged in her complaint that she found she had been raped after regaining her senses and upon complaining, the doctor showed her indecent photos of some women and threatened to click such photographs of her.
She filed an FIR the next day under Sections of 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc), 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court cited another case in which the prosecutrix had not raised any “hue and cry at the time of incident” or “caused injury to the accused”, in which the Delhi High Court had let off the accused, and said that the case can cover the present issue squarely.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)