STATE vs U. D. MESHRAM @ MISHRA

Judgment text excerpt

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 15th April, 2025 + CRL.L.P. 356/2017 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Utkarsh, Ld. APP for the State with W/SI Savita Choudhary and SI Lal Chand P.S. Vasant Kunj, South. versus U. D. MESHRAM @ MISHRA .....Respondent Through: Mr. RHA Sikander and Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378(3) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the State to challenge the Judgment dated 14.12.2016 acquitting the Respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 376/342/506 IPC at P.S. Vasant Kunj in FIR No.0967/2014. 2. The brief facts as per the prosecution that on 06.10.2014 at about 12 Noon, prosecutrix was raped by the Respondent, while her husband had gone to market for purchasing meat. The Respondent before leaving the house, threatened her that her husband would be killed if she told about the incident to anyone. On her complaint, FIR No. 0967/2014 under Sections 376/342/506 IPC was registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj. Medical examination was done and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIKAS CRL.L.P. 356/2017 Page 1 of 9 ARORA Signing Date:14.05.2025 18:44:00 learned MM on 07.10.2014. The Respondent was arrested on 07.10.2014. On completion of investigation, Chargesheet was filed in the Court. 3. Charges under Section 376/342/506 IPC were framed to which the Respondent pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Prosecutrix was examined as PW1, who in her statement made allegations of rape and her husband/Riazul was examined as PW5, who in his statement supported the case of Prosecution. 5. The statement of the Accused was recorde