Panchkula Court Acquits Doctor of All Charges
Overview of the Case
A Panchkula court has acquitted a 59-year-old doctor from the city of all allegations, including sexual harassment, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation. The court found that the trial court had misjudged the evidence and reached an unsustainable conclusion. The Additional Sessions Judge in Panchkula allowed the doctor’s appeal, overturning the conviction from October 2021 and highlighting that the trial court’s findings resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Background of the Conviction
The doctor, a resident of Sector 17, had contested his conviction promptly after being sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 of the IPC, three years under Section 354-A, and two years under Section 506, in addition to a compensation of Rs 30,000. The case was initiated by the Sector 14 police in August 2016.
Details of the Allegations
According to the FIR, the complainant, who is also a resident of Panchkula, accused the doctor, a family acquaintance, of inappropriate behavior. She claimed that he requested her to collect certain medical certificates for her friends. On August 18, 2016, she visited his private hospital, where after handing over the certificates, she alleged that he invited her into his office, closed the door, made inappropriate gestures, professed his love, restrained her from leaving, and touched her inappropriately. She also alleged that he threatened her with severe consequences when she managed to escape.
Appellate Court’s Findings
Upon reviewing the case, the appellate court identified contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative. The complainant provided varying accounts of the incident; in one statement, she indicated that it occurred while seated, while in court, she stated it happened while standing. The court noted that this discrepancy critically affected the plausibility of the alleged actions within the confines of an outpatient department (OPD) room.
The court further observed that claims regarding the door being closed and bolted were contradicted by hospital staff, who testified that the OPD door featured a partially transparent glass panel and that individuals frequently moved in and out. No independent witnesses corroborated the complainant’s assertions of isolation or restraint, casting doubt on the charge of wrongful confinement.
Issues with Testimony and Evidence
The court pointed out that explicit sexual details related to the accused were inconsistently mentioned in the initial complaint and emerged more clearly only during oral testimony, indicating potential exaggeration or afterthought. The testimony of the complainant’s mother was deemed hearsay and lacking independent corroboration, which the trial court improperly treated as substantive evidence.
Regarding the charge under Section 506 of the IPC, the court noted that the complaint lacked a clear or specific life threat, with the alleged threat described in vague terms. Additionally, the five-day delay in filing the FIR, despite interactions between the parties after the alleged incident, raised concerns over the credibility of the prosecution’s claims.
Conclusion of the Appeal
Based on these findings, the appellate court acquitted the doctor of all charges. It also stated that if the compensation amount had already been deposited, it would be considered the cost of legal proceedings and would be released to the complainant.