Wed. Apr 21st, 2021

Darpan vs State Nct Of Delhi on 31 May, 2017

1 min read

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was a delay of 2
days in lodging the FIR. As per the MLC of prosecutrix Ex.PW-6/A dated
12th June, 2012, there was no external injury on the body of the prosecutrix.
However, nail bite mark was noticed on the prosecutrix on 13 th June, 2012 as
per MLC Ex. PW-14/A. The appellants cannot be held responsible for the
aforesaid mark as there was one day gap in between. It was highly
improbable that the prosecutrix did not report the incident to anyone. The
prosecution failed to produce the CDR of the prosecutrix to fortify the fact
that ‘S’ had called her. Husband of the prosecutrix who was a material
witness was not examined. Even if any sexual intercourse took place, the
same was consensual which is evident from the fact that there were no marks
of struggle on the body of the prosecutrix.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply