Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1800 of 2009). Case: Prashant Bharti Vs State of NCT of Delhi. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 8 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 175 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1800 of 2009)
CounselFor Appellant: K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv. and Gaurave Bhargava, Adv. for Niraj Gupta, Adv. and For Respondents: R.K. Rathore, Vikas Bansal and D.S. Mahra, Advs. for Anil Katiyar, Adv. and Priya, Adv.
JudgesD.K. Jain and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
IssueHindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 164, 482; Indian Penal Code - Sections 328, 354, 376
Citation2013 (2) ACR 1461, 2013 (2) AD 89 (SC), AIR 2013 SC 2753, 2013 (4) AJR 469, 2013 (81) AllCC 414, 2013 AllMR 1123 (Cri), 2013 CriLJ 3839, 2013 (1) Cri 195 (SC), 2013 (135) DRJ 26, JT 2013 (2) SC 240, 2013 (3) RCR 399 (Cri), 2013 (4) RLW 3155, 2013 (1) SCALE 652, 2013 (9) SCC 293
Judgement DateJanuary 23, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. On 16.2.2007, Priya (hereinafter referred to as, the complainant/prosecutrix), aged 21 years, a resident of Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi, made a phone call to the Police Control Room (hereinafter referred to as, the PCR). Police personnel immediately reached her residence. She made a statement to the police, leading to the registration of first information report No. 47 of 2007 at Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, under Sections 328 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. In her statement to the police, the complainant/prosecutrix alleged, that the Appellant herein Prashant Bharti (hereinafter referred to as, the Appellant-accused) was known to her for about four months. The Appellant-accused was a resident of Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. It was alleged that on the preceding day i.e., on 15.2.2007, the Appellant-accused had made a phone call to the complainant/prosecutrix, at about 8.45 pm, and asked her to meet him at Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. When she-reached Lodhi Colony, he drove her around in his car. He also offered the complainant/prosecutrix a cold drink (Pepsi) allegedly containing a poisonous/intoxicating substance. According to the complainant/prosecutrix she felt inebriated after taking the cold drink. In her aforesaid state, the Appellant-accused started misbehaving with her. He also touched her breasts. Inspite of the complainant/prosecutrix stopping him, it was alleged, that the Appellant-accused continued to misbehave with her. The complainant/prosecutrix then got the car stopped, and hired an auto-rickshaw to return to her residence. In her statement, the complainant/prosecutrix requested the police to take legal action against the Appellant-accused.

  3. Immediately after recording the statement of Priya (the complainant/prosecutrix) on 16.2.2007, the police took her to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as, the AIIMS), New Delhi. She was medically examined at 1.44 pm. It is sufficient to record herein, that as per the medical report prepared at the AIIMS, there was no evidence of poisoning.

  4. Based on the statement made by the complainant/prosecutrix, the Appellant-accused Prashant Bharti was arrested at 6 pm, on the same day on which the complainant recorded her statement, i.e., on 16.2.2007, a day after the occurrence.

  5. After a lapse of five further days, on 21.2.2007, at 8.20 am, the complainant/prosecutrix made a supplementary statement to the police. On this occasion, she alleged, that Prashant Bharti, the Appellant-accused, had been having physical relations with her in his house, on the assurance-that he would marry her. It was alleged by the complainant/prosecutrix, that the Appellant-accused had subsequently refused to marry her. With reference to the incident of 15.2.2007, she alleged, that she had been administered some intoxicant in a cold drink (Pepsi) by Prashant Bharti, so as to enable him to have a physical relationship with her. But, it was alleged, that she did not succumb to his said desire on 15.2.2007. The complainant/prosecutrix further alleged, that after she returned to her residence on 15.2.2007, she did not feel well and accordingly, had gone to sleep. She therefore explained, why she had made her earlier complaint, on the following day of the incident. In her supplementary statement, she requested the police to take legal action against Prashant Bharti, the Appellant-accused, for having physical relations with her (on 23.12.2006, 25.12.2006 and 1.1.2007) at his residence, on the basis of a false promise to marry her.

  6. Immediately after recording her supplementary statement, the complainant/prosecutrix was taken to the AIIMS. She was medically examined at the AIIMS at 12 noon, on 21.2.2007. In the medical report prepared at the AIIMS after her examination, it was recorded, that she had no external injuries, and that her hymen was not intact. It was pointed out, that a vaginal smear was not taken, because more than a month had elapsed from the date of the alleged intercourse(s). Likewise, it was pointed out, that her clothes were not sent for forensic examination, because she had changed the clothes worn by her at the time of the alleged occurrence(s). In other words, the assertions made by the-accused could not be tested scientifically, because the complainant was being medically examined, after a substantial delay.

  7. Based on the supplementary statement of Priya (the complainant/prosecutrix) recorded on 21.2.2007, the offence under Section 376 was added to the case.

  8. On 27.2.2007, the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (in first information report No. 47 of 2007). A relevant extract of the aforesaid statement, is being reproduced below:

    ... then Prashant asked for my number and detail of address. I gave my office telephone number to him. In evening, Mr. Prashant Bharti called me and talked about loan and after some days, Prashant Bharti came to meet in my office and thereafter we became good friends and one day, Prashant Bharti told me that he loves me and wish to marry me and thereafter, we started meeting frequently and I consented for marriage.

    One day, when all the family members were gone somewhere, Prashant Bharti called me to his home for party and he told me that he will marry me soon and will inform to his parents about our relationship and he made relation with me. And, whenever his home was vacant, he usually calls me up and when his parents came, I asked him to tell them about our relationship and he did not inform this and on this issue, we have fight with each other and I informed to his parents. Then his parents called Prashant about this and Prashant Bharti denied our relationship to his father and neither he wish to marry me and on that day, I was sent to my home by his parents.

    After two days, Prashant Bharti called me and asked me to meet him, as he wish to tender apology and when I was going to reach my home from office, then I, through auto rickshaw, reached at Central School, Lodhi Colony, where Prashant Bharti was standing near to his Santro Car, and he met me there and he asked me that he has committed mistake and he wish to tender apology and after some-time, he took me to his car and thereafter, he told me that he is feeling thirsty and thereafter, he brought Pepsi in car and we both took the Pepsi. And, after drinking the same, I lost my conscious and thereafter, he started misbehaving with me and I asked him that why he was doing so, then he told me that, as I complained to his father, he will take revenge from me, and he forcibly misbehaved with me, and I immediately got down from the car and by Auto, I came to my house and as I was unwell, I could not lodge my complaint with police. On the next day, I called 100 number PCR and there police official, accompanies me and I informed everything to SHO Surinder Jeet and on that basis, he was arrested.

  9. By an order dated 12.3.2007, the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi granted bail to the Appellant-accused. In the aforesaid order passed on 12.3.2007, the following factual position was relied upon, to extend the benefit of bail to the Appellant-accused. The Appellant-accused was in Sector 37, Noida in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 15.2.2007. He was at Noida before 7.55 pm. He, thereafter, remained at different places within Noida and then at Shakarpur, Ghaziabad, Patparganj, Jorbagh etc. From 9.15 pm to 11.30 pm on 15.2.2007, he remained present at a marriage anniversary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
8 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT