Every Delay In Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Said To Be Fatal To Prosecution’s Case: Delhi HC Upholds Rape Conviction
The Delhi High Court has upheld the Judgment of Conviction passed by a Trial Court whereby a man was convicted under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Court noted that every delay in the registration of FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Court added that if the delay is sufficiently explained, the case of the prosecution would not suffer.
“No doubt, delay in lodging the FIR raises considerable doubts in the case of the prosecution, however, the same depends upon the facts of each case and every delay in the registration of the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution and if the delay is sufficiently explained, the case of the prosecution would not suffer.”, the Court noted.
The bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar relying upon testimonies of witnesses and the MLC of the victim held that the prosecution successfully proved that the accused-appellant had committed the offence of rape.
Advocate S.K. Sethi appeared for the accused-appellant whereas APP Ashish Dutta appeared for the State.
In this case, the prosecution had alleged that the accused-appellant had raped minor child aged about 2 years.
The Trial Court convicted him under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Aggrieved, he approached High Court.
The contention of the counsel for the accused-appellant was that in the absence of examination of Doctor who has examined the victim and prepared the MLC, the MLC cannot be admitted in evidence is fallacious.
The Court held that Merely because the doctor who prepared the MLC is not personally examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved.
“Proving of MLC by a colleague doctor who identifies the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who examined the patient or by an administrative staff of the hospital who identifies the signatures of the doctor is sufficient and good proof and MLC cannot be doubted.”, the Court added.
The Court held that there was no infirmity in the impugned judgment convicting the accused.
However, the Court granted him the benefit of set off under Section 428 CrPc for the period of detention undergone.
Cause Title- Kamlesh v. State