'MLC Not Reflecting Injuries Doesn't Nullify Assault Claim': Delhi HC In Minor's 2016 Case
The Delhi High Court ruled that absence of injuries in a minor girl’s medical report does not negate her statement of assault. It directed the trial court to reconsider charges of assault.
New Delhi, Jul 19 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the medical report of a minor girl does not reflect injuries, her "explicit statement" about assault on her cannot be discarded.
Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observations while directing a trial court to consider afresh the charge of assault and wrongful confinement against a man and his wife in a 2016 case lodged by the alleged victim working as a receptionist in the accused's company.
The trial court had framed charge of rape and unnatural sex against the man, while it discharged him and his wife of the charges of assault and wrongful confinement.
"Merely because MLC of prosecutrix does not reflect injuries, the explicit statement of the prosecutrix that she was beaten up cannot be discarded," the judge said in a July 18 order.
The trial court had held that since the girl's MLC, or medico-legal certificate, did not mention any injury, charge for offence under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of IPC cannot be framed.
It also observed that in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, recorded before a magistrate, the girl had alleged having received kicks in abdomen and her head struck against wall but no injuries reflected in the MLC and that shows no case for charge under Section 323 IPC.
As regards charge for offence under Section 342 (wrongful confinement) of IPC, the trial court held that since there was no averment in the FIR that the respondents tied up girl's hands, there was no confinement.
The high court, however, set aside the junior court's findings, saying that whether or not leg blows in abdomen and striking of head against the wall would lead to noticeable injuries, not found in the MLC, would be explainable in many ways, which can be done only during trial and not at the stage of charge by minute examination.
"Similarly as regards the alleged confinement of the prosecutrix, there is an explicit statement of the prosecutrix in the FIR: 'mujhe apne ghar band rakha (I was confined by him in his house).' For wrongful confinement, it is not necessary that the victim must be immobilised by tying his hands. Confinement within a room, as alleged in the present case, also would suffice in order to make out a prima facie case for framing charge for offence under Section 342 IPC," the bench said.
(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
Top Headlines
