The High Court of Delhi, through learned judge, Justice V.K Shali in the case of Sunita vs. State of NCT of Delhi & ORS (CRL. A. No.1104/2010) held that not even a single fact should be available on record which will be incompatible with the innocence of the accused
BRIEF FACTS: The facts of the prosecution case was that while the appellant/complainant Sunita was cleaning her room, suddenly her husband and her mother-in-law, who are the accused persons, came there and assaulted her physically. It was alleged that her husband poured kerosene oil on her while her mother-in-law threw a burning match stick on her. The matchstick was alleged to have landed on her dupatta which she immediately threw on the floor. As a consequence of this, the dupatta got burnt. The accused persons ran away from the spot. It was alleged that, in the meantime, the brother of the appellant who had gone to get some food, came back and poured water on her which saved her life. PCR was informed about the incident by the complainant and her brother. The local police came to the spot but the complainant refused to make any statement as she wanted to wait for her father to come. The appellant/complainant was sent to DDU Hospital for medical examination and on the next day after the arrival of her father, she made a statement to the Police on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR was recorded. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet under Sections 30,324 & 34 of IPC was filed.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The court observed that the facts coupled with the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge clearly showed that the story of the prosecution was not only highly improbable but also seemed to be full of holes inasmuch as there are not only contradictions and inconsistencies but also a serious doubt about the genuineness and correctness of the allegations levelled by the appellant. The court was in total agreement with the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, so far as the acquittal of the accused persons in the case was concerned. The court dismissed the appeal by remarking that the guilt of the accused persons admittedly has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, meaning thereby not even a single fact should be available on record which will be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K