Fri. Apr 23rd, 2021

Deepak @ Deepchand vs State on 1 June, 2017

2 min read

CRL.A. 512/2016 Page 1 of 10
2. Assailing the conviction, learned Counsel for the appellant contends
that there is a delay in reporting the matter to Police. Though even as per
case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix reached back to her grand-mother on
6th February, 2010 in the morning, however till 7th February, 2010 no PCR
call was made and only after informing Bhoop Singh a call was made at
10.17 PM. Further even compliance as mandated under Section 157 Cr.P.C.
was not done immediately and the copy of the FIR was received by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 11th February, 2010. After the PCR call
was made at 10.17 PM on 7th February, 2010 the return information sent by
the PCR was that no rape has been committed. Though in the statement of
the grand-mother on the basis of which FIR was registered, particulars of the
place where the prosecutrix was allegedly raped were not given, however in
the Tehrir recorded by the investigating officer it was stated that the offence
of rape took place at “Mahender ka Makan”. There is no explanation as to
how the place of occurrence was added in the Tehrir. Further during the
course of investigation, a status report was filed by the Police which was
accompanied by the statement of the landlady of the house where the
appellant was residing. She stated that the appellant was residing at H.No.
2/420, Shah Alam Band, Jahangir Puri since many years. Thus learned
counsel for the appellant seeks to draw an inference that the appellant was
not residing at “Mahender Ka Makan”. Reliance is placed on the decisions
reported as 228 (2016) DLT 162 (DB) Vishal Vs. State and 2016
LawSuit(Del) 2525 Mohd. Hanif; Mohd.Rafiq; Mirazuddin; Sirazuddin Vs.
State. There are material contradictions and improvements in the statements
of the prosecutrix and her grand-mother, thus the appellant is liable to be

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply