Fri. Apr 23rd, 2021

Dr Pawan Kumar vs The State, Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 May, 2017

1 min read

2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and
have examined the file. Undisputedly, the petitioner is facing criminal
proceedings in case FIR No.431/2016 registered under Sections
354A/354B/354/376(2)(E) IPC and Sections 6/10 POCSO Act PS Moti
Nagar. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has already been
filed against him in the Court. It is informed that the charge has since been

Crl.M.C. 1989/2017 Page 1 of 3
framed and the case is listed for recording statements of the prosecution
witnesses.
3. By moving the application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on
21.03.2017 the petitioner desired to get further investigation conducted in
the case claiming that the police did not explore complete and fair
investigation. It was informed that statement of the doctor who shared the
chamber with him at the time of alleged incident was not recorded; the
statements of the patients sitting outside the OPD, nursing staff and other
attendants were also not recorded during investigation. In her 164 Cr.P.C.
statement, the prosecutrix had claimed to have remained admitted in
emergency ward for 2 – 3 weeks. No such record was collected by the
Investigating Officer. It was further claimed that the prosecutrix had
manipulated her date of birth in the school record. Reliance was placed on
‘Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab and Ors.’, 2009 (1) SCC 441.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply