Panchkula court acquits doctor, overturns 2021 conviction

The doctor, a resident of Sector 17, had challenged the conviction soon after the trial court 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 Rs 30,000. The case was registered by Sector 14 police in August 2016.

Also read- Testimony of victim 'inconsistent' and 'unreliable': Delhi Court acquits dentist in 2018 rape case

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-examining the entire record, the appellate court noted contradictions in the prosecution’s case. It noted that the complainant had given differing versions of how the alleged incident took place. In one statement, she said the incident occurred while she was sitting, while in court, she claimed it happened when 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," said the court as per HT news report. 

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's version susceptible to embellishment.

With these findings, the appellate court acquitted the doctor of all charges. It also clarified that if the compensation amount had already been deposited, it would be treated as the cost of legal proceedings and released to the complainant.

Also read- Delhi Doctor Suicide Case: After 10 years, Court acquits doctor of dowry death charge