E-Paper
Panchkula sessions court overturns 2021 ruling against city doctor
Setting aside the trial court’s October 2021 judgment, the appellate court held the conviction ‘unsustainable in law and on facts’ and warranted interference
Observing that the trial court’s findings resulted from a misreading and misappreciation of evidence, leading to a clear miscarriage of justice, the court of the additional sessions judge, Panchkula, has acquitted a 59-year-old city-based doctor of all charges under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 354-A (sexual harassment), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in an appeal case.
Setting aside the trial court’s October 2021 judgment, the appellate court held the conviction ‘unsustainable in law and on facts’ and warranted interference.
The accused, a Sector 17 resident, filed the criminal appeal in November 2021, challenging his conviction by the then trial judge, Nitin Raj. He had been booked by Sector 14 police in an FIR registered on August 23, 2016. The trial court had sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 342 IPC, three years under Section 354-A IPC, and two years under Section 506 IPC, along with a compensation of ₹30,000.
The appellate court clarified that the compensation amount, if already deposited, shall be appropriated as costs of the proceedings and released to the complainant.
According to the FIR, the complainant, a Panchkula resident, alleged that the accused, a family acquaintance, asked her to collect certain medical certificates for her friends. On August 18, 2016, between 6 and 7 pm, she visited his private hospital in Panchkula. After handing over the certificates, she alleged the doctor asked her into his office, closed the door, made vulgar gestures, professed love for her, restrained her from leaving, and touched her inappropriately. She claimed he threatened her with dire consequences when she managed to push him away and exit.
After re-appreciating the evidence, the appellate court held that the trial court had accorded undue weight to testimony suffering from serious infirmities that went to the root of the prosecution case.
The court pointed out material contradictions in the complainant’s statements. In her statement under Section 164 CrPC, she stated that the incident occurred while she was seated, whereas during her deposition, she claimed it took place while she was standing. The court held that this was not a minor discrepancy but one that directly impacted the physical feasibility of the alleged acts in the confined space of an OPD room.
The allegation that the door was closed and bolted was contradicted by hospital staff and the record custodian, who testified that the OPD door had a partially transparent glass panel and that people routinely moved in and out. No independent hospital witness supported the complainant’s claim of isolation or restraint, rendering the charge of wrongful confinement doubtful.
The court also noted that explicit sexual details attributed to the accused were not consistently mentioned in the initial complaint and only appeared at later stages, particularly during oral testimony. This “progressive amplification” of allegations was held to be a material improvement suggestive of exaggeration and afterthought.
The testimony of the complainant’s mother was held to be purely hearsay with no independent corroborative value, and the trial court was faulted for treating it as substantive corroboration. Regarding the charge under Section 506 IPC, the court observed that no clear or specific threat to life was mentioned in the complaint. The alleged threat was vague, inconsistently narrated, and insufficient to constitute criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC.
The delay of five days in lodging the FIR, despite admitted interaction between the parties after the alleged incident, was also held to be significant and inadequately explained, making the prosecution version susceptible to embellishment.
