* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 29th April, 2019
% Decided on: 13th May, 2019
+ CRL.A. 659/2017
NIRMAL MANDAL ….. Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate
STATE ….. Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ashok K. Garg, APP for
the State with SI Devender
Singh, PS Govind Puri.
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. By the present appeal, Nirmal challenges the impugned judgment
dated 18th March, 2017 convicting him for the offences punishable under
Sections 417/Section376 IPC and the order on sentence dated 24th March 2017
directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years
and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix in her
cross-examination has admitted that the sexual intercourse was consensual.
The prosecutrix further stated that when she called on the mobile phone of
the appellant on 7th May 2013 the call was attended by a lady but she has
failed to place on record any Call Detail Record to prove the same. She has
also failed to place on record the call detail record with respect to the call on
100 number. He further submits that there is a delay of four days in filing
CRL.A. 659/2017 Page 1 of 6
the complaint. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has
also not been recorded. He further submits that the prosecutrix in her
statement stated that when her sister called the police on 100 number they
came to their house and took everyone to the police station whereas Pinki
deposed that police apprehended the appellant from his office. The
prosecutrix has alleged that the appellant had beaten her but there is no
external injury on the body of the prosecutrix as per the MLC.
3. Per contra, Learned APP for the State submits that that the impugned
judgment and the order on sentence suffers from no illegality.
4. Police machinery was set into motion on 13th May 2013 when the
prosecutrix came to the police station informing that she had been raped.
Case was assigned to SI Kusum Dangi who recorded the statement of the
prosecutrix wherein she stated that she was working in the Company as an
Office Assistant. In the first week of February 2013 she had gone to
Rudrapur for some office work where she met the appellant. In a few days
they became close friends and started meeting each other. The appellant
asked her to marry him and she agreed. After staying in Rudrapur for a week
she returned to Delhi and they continued talking on the phone. In the last
week of February 2013, the appellant came to Delhi for some personal work
and stayed with her in her rented accommodation. During that time, he
forced her to make physical relations with her against her will on the pretext
that they were going to get married soon. Later on, the appellant came to
Delhi multiple times in a span of a month and a half, stayed in her flat and
made physical relations with her multiple times on the assurance that he
would marry her soon. On 8th May 2013, the appellant came to her house as
they had decided to go to his native place in Assam to discuss their marriage
CRL.A. 659/2017 Page 2 of 6
with his family but he refused to go there and told her that they could not get
married and he was going back to Rudrapur. On that day itself when she was
going to Govindpuri Police Station to make a complaint against the
appellant he also reached there, apologized to her and told her that he would
get married to her so she returned home. The appellant left the next morning
without informing her and his mobile phone was also switched off. She tried
contacting him multiple times but he was deliberately running away from
her. He had physical relations with her on the false pretext of marrying her.
Aforesaid statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-5/A. On the basis of the
aforesaid statement, FIR No. 322/2013 (Ex.PW-2/A) was registered at PS
Govind Puri for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
5. SI Kusum Dangi sent the prosecutrix to AIIMS for medical
examination with Lady Ct. Suman who got the prosecutrix medically
6. On 26th May 2013, SI Shrikrishna alongwith Ct. Mahender arrested
the appellant from his house at S-86, Sanjay Nagar Khera, Udham Singh
Nagar, Uttarakhand vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1/A. His personal search was
done vide personal search memo Ex.PW-1/E. He was brought to Delhi and
sent for medical examination. His disclosure statement was recorded vide
7. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Charge was
framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections
417/Section376 IPC vide order dated 27th September 2013.
8. Prosecutrix (PW-5) deposed in sync with her statement made to the
police. She further added that when she had called the appellant on 7th May
2013 the call was attended by a lady who introduced herself as the wife of
CRL.A. 659/2017 Page 3 of 6
the appellant. She further stated that when the appellant had come to her
house on 8th May 2013 he was drunk and gave her beatings. During this
incident her cousin sister Pinki called the police on 100 number. The police
came to the spot and all of them along with the appellant went to the Police
Station. She further stated that after running away the appellant gave her
mobile number to his friends who used to call and abuse in filthy language.
During the course of investigation, the brother-in-law of the appellant also
met her and informed her that the appellant was married twice and had
children. She had met the wife and children of the appellant at Saket court
during court proceedings and was feeling stressed to attend the court
proceedings due to which she gave her affidavit qua settlement. In her cross-
examination she stated that her entire dispute with the appellant was over
and she did not want to take any action against him on the condition that he
would not threaten her in the future and would not try to contact her and her
sister. She further admitted to the fact that they made physical relations with
each other with their consent and due to her quarrel with the appellant she
told him that she did not want to marry him.
9. Pinki (PW-8), corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix. She
further added that whenever the prosecutrix would ask the appellant about
marriage he would beat her up and if she intervened the appellant would
beat her too. On the day she called the police, who apprehended the
appellant from his office. Later, he apologized to them and promised to
marry the prosecutrix. She further stated that they found out about Nirmal
Mandal’s marital status during court visit when his wife and father came to
10. Dr. Manisha (PW-4), SR AIIMS deposed that on 14th May 2013 at
CRL.A. 659/2017 Page 4 of 6
about 12:15 A.M., the prosecutrix aged 23 years was brought by her cousin
sister and was alleging history of sexual intercourse with the appellant after
falsely promising to marry her. She conducted the medical examination of
the prosecutrix vide MLC Ex.PW-4/A. On examination, no external injury
marks found on her person and her hymen was found torn.
11. Dr. Manjul Bijarnia (PW-10), Sr. Resident, Forensic Medicine,
AIIMS stated that MLC of the appellant was prepared by Dr.Hans Raj vide
Ex.AW-1/1. He identified the signatures of Dr.Hans Raj Singh on the MLC.
12. Appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated
that he met the prosecutrix along with one Amit at Rudrapur who did his
insurance of Rs.1,00,000/-. When he went for verification of documents, he
found out that it was done by a fake company. When he asked the
prosecutrix to refund his money, she promised to do so within one month.
After a month when he asked for the money, they quarreled with him and
made a complaint to the police who arrested him. They got him released
from jail and again made a complaint to the police after 13-15 days. The
prosecutrix and her sister used to live with Amit who was a friend of his
elder brother-in-law and already knew that he was married. He went to
Tughlakabad Extension to meet Amit but never proposed to marry the
13. Though compromise could not be a ground to acquit the appellant of
the serious offence, however considering the facts that there are
discrepancies in the case of the prosecution and the prosecution in her
testimony admits that the relationship was consensual, the appellant is
entitled to be acquitted.
14. Consequently the appeal is disposed of by setting aside the impugned
CRL.A. 659/2017 Page 5 of 6
judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Appellant is directed to be
released forthwith if not required in any other case.
15. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for
updation of the Jail record and intimation to the appellant.
16. TCR be returned.
MAY 13, 2019
CRL.A. 659/2017 Page 6 of 6