Delhi District Court
State vs Jaswant And Anr on 21 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01), CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-012549-2016
SC No. 28889/2016
FIR No.283/2016
U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC
P.S. Prashad Nagar
STATE VERSUS JASWANT AND ANOTHER
(i) SC No. of the case : 28889/2016
(ii) Date of commission of offence : 26/27.05.2016
(iii) Name, parentage and address : 1. Jaswant @ Ganju
accused S/o Sh. Narender Kumar
R/o 16/1423, E-Block,
Bapa Nagar, Padam
Singh Road, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
2. Lalit
S/o Nand Kishore
R/o 665/A, Gali No.2,
Punjabi Basti, Anand
Parbat, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
(iv) Offence complained of : 377/367/506/34 IPC
SC No. 28889/2016
FIR No.283/2016
U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC
State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 1 of 20
(v) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(vi) Final order : Acquittal
Date of Institution : 15.09.2016
Date of Judgment reserved on : 01.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 21.08.2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :-
1. The present case was registered on the complaint of Sh. Chander Prakash Ex.PW1/B dated 27.05.2016. As per the complaint on 26.05.2016 the complainant was transferring songs from the laptop to mobile phone at the shop of Gulab Bhaiya / PW-11 situated at Bapa Nagar then at that time around 11:30 PM the friend of PW-1 namely Jaswant @ Ganju / accused No.1 and Lalit/ accused No.2 came at that shop. Despite of having no issue accused No.1 and 2 started throwing abuses on PW-1. When PW-11 Gulab Bhaiya had scolded them then the accused left from the said shop. The PW-1 / complainant is doing the work of stream press. The PW-1 does not know address of both the SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.Page 2 of 20
accused however he knows that the accused person stay somewhere in Bapa Nagar. Hence as per above averments of PW-1 in the complaint both the accused are his acquaintance and not his friends. PW-11 Gulab Bhaiya had escorted the PW-1/ complainant Chander Prakash at Padam Singh Road and from where PW-1 started walking towards his house. In the meantime both the accused reached there around 12:15 AM and forcibly took the complainant / PW-1 about 150-200 meter inside Bapa Nagar. Accused No.1 was having stone in his hand. After taking PW-1 in the gali both the accused had threatened to kill PW-1 with the said stone and on such threat they had removed pant of PW-1. Turn by turn both the accused had committed unnatural intercourse with the PW-1 under regular threat of hitting by that stone. After committing the offence accused person left the complainant at that place. At that time PW-1 had rang at 100 number vide which was recorded DD No.7A dated 27.05.2016 Ex.PW5/D. It records at about 1:55 AM that at Shiv Bapa Nagar, H-Block, H. No.16/313 some altercation had occurred. The call was received from mobile No.8586054535. It was marked to IO/SI Mohit Malik/PW-14. IO/SI Mohit Malik/PW-14 with HC Suresh/PW-6 had proceeded towards the spot. FIR Ex.PW5/A was registered in the matter at the PS at 6:05 AM on 27.05.2016. The certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act on the FIR is Ex.PW5/C. IO had prepared the site plan Ex.PW14/B in which HC Suresh is witness. Site plan mentions that point A is the place where the offence under Section 377 IPC was SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 3 of 20committed and point B is the place from where the PW-1 / complainant was abducted by the accused person and had committed the offence under Section 367 IPC.
2. The arrest memo of accused Jaswant is Ex.PW6/D who was arrested at about 4:10 PM on 27.05.2016. The arrest was witnessed by the complainant and HC Suresh. Accused No.2 Lalit was arrested at 4:45 PM on 27.05.2016 vide Ex.PW6/E. The disclosure statement of accused Lalit is Ex.PW6/C and disclosure statement of accused Jaswant is Ex.PW6/B. The seizure memo of exhibits is Ex.PW6/A in reference to medical examination of the complainant/ PW-1. The seizure memo of exhibits of both the accused is Ex.PW10/A which is in reference to conducting their potency test. The pointing out memo by accused No.1 Jaswant is Ex.PW14/D and by accused No.2 Lalit is Ex.PW14/C. The MLC of accused No.2 Lalit is Ex.PW2/A vide which he was referred to Forensic Department for potency test and the MLC of potency test is Ex.PW7/B. The MLC of potency test of accused No.1 Jaswant is Ex.PW7/C and his reference for potency test is vide MLC Ex.PW8/A.
3. After the investigation the chargesheet was filed against both the accused. Charge was given to the accused No.1 Jaswant and No.2 Lalit under Section 377/367/34 IPC on 19.09.2016 to which both the accused person did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 4 of 204. The prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-15 the total evidence against both the accused. The statement of accused No.1 Jaswant and No.2 Lalit was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. on 02.07.2025. Both the accused had preferred not to lead evidence in defence.
5. Final arguments are heard from both the parties and record perused.
6. Ld. Counsel for accused has relied on following citations:
1. Mousam Singha Roy and Ors vs. State of West Bengal Criminal Appeal No.231-234 of 2002 decided on 21.08.2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
2. Shahnawaz vs. State Crl. A. 892/2010 decided on 16.07.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
3. Khajappa and Ors vs. the State of Karnataka & Akshaya Kumar and Ors vs. The State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No.200109 of 2019 and 200111 of 2019 decided on 22.11.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (Kalaburagi Bench); and
4. Santosh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2020 decided on 14.02.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016
U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 5 of 207. The relevant statute and citations are reproduced hereasunder:
367. Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to grievous hurt, slavery, etc.--
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected, or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural lust of any person, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
As regards, the offence under Section 367 IPC, two ingredients necessary to be established are:
(1) kidnapping or abducting any person and (2) such kidnapping or abducting in order that-
(a) such person may be subjected, or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural lust of any person, or
(b) knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of
377. Unnatural offences.--
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled A vs State on 20 December, 2021 in Crl.A. 140/2020 (DB) has laid down as under:
SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.Page 6 of 20
26. Again, for the sake of completeness, it may be noticed, that the two appellants were put through a medical examination at AIIMS. MLC dated 25.07.2012 of appellant A1 was exhibited as Ex.PW6/A; and MLC dated 26.07.2012 of appellant A2 was exhibited as Ex.PW5/A; and it was opined that there was nothing to suggest that either of them was incapable of performing sexual intercourse under normal circumstances, nor was any other abnormality noticed that would in any manner preclude the commission of the offence by either of the appellants.
27. Upon a conspectus of the depositions extracted above and the medical evidence that has come on record, we are satisfied that the following conclusions can safely be drawn, without any shadow of reasonable doubt :
(a) It can be concluded that the prosecutrix's statement recorded under section 164 CrPC and her deposition in court, in which she says that appellant A2 committed upon her the carnal acts as described in her own wording, are cogent, credible and trustworthy. Furthermore, the prosecutrix's statement, as recorded under section 164 CrPC as also in her deposition in court, in relation to what her father appellant A1 did to her is also cogent, credible and trustworthy.
(b) Besides, we are not depending solely on the prosecutrix's statement under section 164 CrPC or on her deposition in court, but are also supported in our inferences by the medical evidence that has come on record, by way of the MLC of the prosecutrix, which confirms a torn hymen, redness in the genitals, as also tenderness in one of the wrist joints. This makes the allegations against the appellant all the more plausible, absent any other explanation; and in fact no explanation or evidence has been brought forth by the defence in this behalf; and
(c) Ex abundanti cautela we have also explored any possible reason for false implication of either of the appellants; and we find nothing credible on the record to suggest that.
28. Accordingly, we find nothing erroneous or amiss in the SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 7 of 20conclusions arrived at by the learned trial court, that both appellants are guil sufficient to bring the actions of the father within section 34 IPC, namely the acts done by him in furtherance of a common intention to commit the offence, and would make him liable for all acts committed by appellant A2 in the same manner as if the acts were done by appellant A1 himself. ty of the acts alleged against them.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
37. The genesis of this section is found in clauses 361 and 362 of the Indian Penal Code as originally drafted in 1837, which criminalized 'unnatural offences'. It may not be out of place to briefly set-out the notes of Lord T.B. Macaulay, when he first addressed the issue of unnatural offences in clauses 361 and 362. These clauses and the notes appended thereto were as under :
"OF UNNATURAL OFFENCES.
361. Whoever, intending to gratify unnatural lust, touches, for that purpose, any person, or any animal, or is by his own consent touched by any person, for the purpose of gratifying unnatural lust, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years and must not be less than two years, and shall also be liable to fine.
362. Whoever, intending to gratify unnatural lust, touches for that purpose any person without that person's free and intelligent consent, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to life and must not be less than seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
***** "Clauses 361 and 362 relate to an odious class of offences respecting which it is desirable that as little as possible should be said. We leave without comment to the judgment of His Lordship in Council the two Clauses which we have provided for these offences. We are unwilling to insert, either in the text, or in the notes, any thing which could give rise to public discussion on this revolting subject; as we are decidedly of SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 8 of 20opinion that the injury which would be done to the morals of the community by such discussion would far more than compensate for any benefits which might be derived from legislative measures framed with the greatest precision."
(emphasis supplied)
38. Our research on the jurisprudence of section 377 as it has evolved since, does not reveal any attempt to give any comprehensive definition in any judicial decision, as to what is, or what is not, or why an act amounts to - 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature'.
39. As we see from the above note penned by Lord Macaulay, from the very beginning, there is reluctance to legislatively or judicially define with any exactitude, the phrase - 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature'.
40. The legal lexicons and legal literature define the words 'intercourse', 'sexual' and 'carnal' and those words when used in juxtaposition, in the following way :
i) P. Ramanatha Aiyar's 'Major Law Lexicon' 4th Edition (2010) defines "intercourse", in its widest connotation, as 'social communication between individuals'. Black's Law Dictionary 11th Edition defines "intercourse" as "physical sexual contact, especially involving the penetration of the vagina by the penis";
ii) In the heterosexual context, the judicial connotation given to "sexual intercourse" is penile-vaginal penetration. This connotation is found in Sakshi (supra);
iii) The word "carnal" is understood in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's 'Major Law Lexicon' 4th Edition (2010) to mean anything pertaining to the flesh or to the sensual.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
42. However, as observed above, section 377 IPC refers not to sexual intercourse but to carnal intercourse, whereby it is clear that the intention of the Legislature was to engraft a different SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 9 of 20offence in section 377 IPC vis-à-vis section 375 IPC, which is why a different phrase was employed.
43. Though the restrictive meaning of the phrase 'sexual intercourse' will not deter the court from interpreting the phrase 'carnal intercourse' in its fullest ambit, we must be guided by the legal interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the phrase 'sexual intercourse' in Sakshi (supra), which is heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis. This interpretation turns inter-alia on the explanation appended to section 375, which points to the requirement of 'penetration', for an act to amount to sexual intercourse. A similar explanation appearing in section 377 makes 'penetration' a necessary ingredient of the offence of 'carnal intercourse' as well. The offence under section 377 would therefore arise when there is 'penetrative intercourse' which is 'against the order of nature'.
44. Therefore, in our opinion, 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' appearing in section 377 must have the following ingredients:
i. it must have to do with flesh and sensuality, namely it must be carnal;
ii. there must be intercourse between individuals, without restricting it only to human-to-human intercourse; iii. it must involve penetration other than penile-vaginal penetration, since by the very nature, intent and purpose of section 377, it must refer to an unnatural act, such as 'penile-anal penetration', 'digital penetration' or 'object penetration'.
45. Subject to the requirement of the above ingredients, we however completely agree that attempting to define the phrase 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' with exactitude is neither possible, and perhaps not even desirable. Accordingly, though we hesitate to give the phrase 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' any exhaustive meaning, we hold, that as a SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 10 of 20matter of law, any physical act answering to all the above ingredients, committed upon a minor is per-se 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature'.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
46. In the present case, the prosecutrix's testimony is clear, cogent and unwavering insofar as it concerns the allegation against appellant A2, that he committed digital penetration of the prosecutrix's anus. As extracted above, in her statement under section 164 CrPC and in her deposition in court, the prosecutrix has stated that appellant A2 would gag her mouth with cloth, bind her limbs and then do 'batamizi' (badtamizi) with her. On further elaboration, she has said that appellant A2 would remove her clothes and then lie on top of her and touch her chest, vagina and anus. He would then put his penis against her vagina and anus and also insert his finger into her anus. She has deposed that the whole ordeal would last about half-an-hour. The prosecutrix alleges that after appellant A2 was finished, her father appellant A1, would commit all the aforesaid acts upon her other than the act of digital penetration.
47. In light of the above allegations, it requires no further analysis that the offences under section 377 read with section 34 IPC are made-out against appellant A2.
48. We must however, now decide what offence, if any, is made- out against the prosecutrix's father, appellant A1. Though the prosecutrix says that her father, appellant A1, committed upon her all acts that appellant A2 did, save and except digital penetration; however, the prosecutrix unequivocally says that it is her father who had picked her up from her bua's place and took her to the place where appellant A2 would subject her to the offences she narrates. What is evident therefore, is that appellant A1, consciously and intentionally, gave to appellant A2, access to the prosecutrix. She also says in clear terms that, short of digital penetration, appellant A1 also committed upon her the same acts as did appellant A2. This, in our view, is SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 11 of 20sufficient to bring the actions of the father within section 34 IPC, namely the acts done by him in furtherance of a common intention to commit the offence, and would make him liable for all acts committed by appellant A2 in the same manner as if the acts were done by appellant A1 himself. We would be loathe to entering upon any fancy discussion as to what exact act was committed upon the prosecutrix by which of the appellants. In holding so, we are fortified by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh & Anr vs. State of UP (2001) 3 SCC 673; para 24 10 (2010) and Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh10-SCC 259; para 49, 50.
8. The first ingredient under Section 367 IPC the prosecution has to satisfy is that the accused person had kidnapped the complainant. The complainant in his examination in chief has deposed that on 26- 27.05.2016 at about 11:30 PM at the shop of Gulab Bhaiya he had seen that some unknown persons were quarrelling with each other at a little distance from the shop. The said person came fighting at the shop. Mr. Gulab/ PW-11 had asked PW-1 to remove the said person from fighting with each other from that place. PW-1 asked those person not to quarrel. On that said 4-5 person gave beatings to PW-1 with Danda. They removed the pant of PW-1 and had inserted a wooden Danda in his anal. When PW-1 shouted then said 4-5 persons fled away from there. Mr. Gulab had left for somewhere else when PW-1 had called police from his mobile No.8586054535 and the same number had appeared in Ex.PW5/D which is DD No.7A dated 27.05.2016. Hence PW-1 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution as initially as per the complaint SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 12 of 20Ex.PW1/B only two accused person were fighting outside the shop of Gulab and now in his deposition PW-1 has stated that 4-5 public persons were fighting with each other. Hence PW-1 has materially improved in his deposition.
9. PW-1 has further turned hostile to his complaint Ex.PW1/B as in the said complaint he had stated that the unnatural intercourse was done with him later in point of time when he was returning back to his home via Padam Singh Road and the said act was committed at Bapa Nagar whereas in his deposition it is stated that a wooden Danda was unnaturally used against him in reference to Section 377 IPC by the accused person at the shop of Gulab Bhaiya itself.
10. The shop of Gulab Bhaiya as per Ex.PW5/D vide DD No.7A dated 27.05.2016 is at H-Block, H. No.16/313 and the same is the address mentioned by PW-1 in his deposition whereas Gulab Bhaiys is not staying there whose address is somewhere at No.16/12 at Karol Bagh. Hence the complaint vide Ex.PW1/B was made from the address of the shop and not from the spot mentioned in site plan Ex.PW14/B. It shows that the place from where the alleged offence under Section 377 IPC was committed was therefore different both in the deposition of PW-1 and in the deposition of PW-2. Due to such material contradiction it cannot be said that PW-1 was abducted from point B and taken to SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 13 of 20point A as per site plan Ex.PW14/B. Another material contradiction is the deposition of IO/ PW-14 dated 03.10.2024 at 2nd page that point A is the place where the complainant was taken by the accused person towards point B. Contrary to the site plan Ex.PW14/B where the point A is the place where the offence under Section 377 IPC was committed after taking the complainant/ PW-1 and point B is the place from where the complainant was allegedly kidnapped by the accused person. This is the material contradiction which goes to the root of the case. Hence it has become doubtful that the accused person had kidnapped or abducted the PW-1 Chander Prakash from point B to point A as per the site plan Ex.PW14/B. In his statement Ex.PW1/B it is stated that when in the first incident the accused person had went away from the shop then Gulab Bhaiya / PW-11 with whom PW-1 went alongwith had dropped PW-1 at Padam Singh Road from where PW-1 started walking towards his house whereas in his examination in chief PW-1 has not deposed that PW-11 Gulab had dropped him at Padam Singh Road.
11. PW-1 has deposed that he had made a call to police from his mobile No.8586054535. The said call was made at 100 number vide Ex.PW5/D which does not mention about the commission of offence under Section 377 IPC but it mention about an altercation whereas as per complaint Ex.PW1/B the mobile phone call was made after commission of offence under Section 377 IPC. As per deposition of PW-1 the SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 14 of 20mobile phone call was made by him at the shop itself and not while walking towards his home via Padam Singh Road whereas in Ex.PW1/B it is stated that he had made mobile phone call to police after commission of offence under Section 377 IPC. Hence the deposition of PW-1 dated 28.10.2016 is in contradiction to DD No.7A Ex.PW5/D and the complaint Ex.PW1/B.
12. Vide Ex.PW1/PX1 (page No.119 of the document file) which is statement under Section 161 Cr.PC of PW-1 dated 27.05.2016 records that at the instance of PW-1 the site of offence was inspected where offence under Section 377 IPC was committed and the site plan was prepared. Whereas in the site plan Ex.PW14/B in which PW-1 Chander Prakash does not appear as witness shows that this site plan was not prepared at the instance of PW-1. PW-1 has not deposed that the site plan Ex.PW14/B was prepared at his instance. He has deposed that after his medical examination police had taken him to PS Prashad Nagar and obtained his signatures on 3-4 blank papers after which he was released. He has identified his underwear as Ex.PW1/P1. PW-1 has turned totally hostile to the case of the prosecution. It is denied by PW-1 in cross examination by learned Addl. P. P. for the State that the police had inspected the spot at his instance. It is denied that the site plan was prepared by police at his instance. He was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P. C. Ex.PW1/PX-1 where it is recorded that SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 15 of 20during investigation the site plan was prepared by the IO.
13. The most relevant evidence with the prosecution regarding the presence of the victim at different places is by proving mobile phone location of the victim at such place. In fact no effort was made by police to obtain such mobile phone record to verify the location of the victim at different place and time. It was a relevant and material evidence and not producing the same on record creates doubt in the case of the prosecution moreso when the complainant/ PW-1 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The said fact is seen in the light of the fact that the MLC Ex.PW1/A of Chander Prakash / PW-1 does not mention name of any of the accused in spite of the mentioning of name of the accused in complaint Ex.PW1/B in which it is also mentioned that both the accused person are friend of the PW-1. Hence the name of accused person were known to PW-1 before hand as his acquaintance and non mentioning of their name in MLC creates doubt in the case of the prosecution about the manner and time in which the alleged offence had happened. In his deposition PW-1 has deposed that some unknown person were quarreling at a little distance from the shop of PW-11 Gulab Bhaiya whereas the case of the prosecution both in the chargesheet and the complaint Ex.PW1/B is that the accused person were friend of PW-1. Hence it creates doubt that the PW-1 is not deposing truthfully before the present Court and therefore it is held that the prosecution has failed to SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 16 of 20prove that the PW-1 was kidnapped by the accused persons at Padam Singh Road.
14. The second ingredient under Section 367 IPC is about putting in danger or subjecting to such unnatural lust of any person in respect of which charge is also framed against accused under Section 377 IPC. Therefore the second ingredient of Section 367 IPC and Section 377 IPC are discussed together hereunder which are part of same alleged act of the accused person. Section 377 IPC does not involve ingredient of subjecting such person to danger of grievous hurt however the ingredient of unnatural lust is involved and therefore the above provisions are discussed together hereunder.
15. Now it has to be seen that whether the offence of unnatural lust against order of nature was committed by the accused person against PW-1. The findings recorded under Section 367 IPC above are equally applicable to the findings under Section 377 IPC discussed hereunder which are not repeated for the sake of brevity. As per the complainant /PW-1 vide Ex.PW1/B the accused person had thrown abuses at the shop of Gulab Bhaiya at 11:30 PM on 26.05.2016 who left after being scolded by Gulab Bhaiya /PW-11. PW-11 has deposed that the accused person were arguing outside his shop on 26.05.2016. He got them separated and asked them to go from there. He left PW-1 Chander Prakash at SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 17 of 20Padam Singh Road and thereafter he went to his house. PW-1 contrary to his complaint Ex.PW1/B has deposed that police had taken his signature on 3-4 blank papers after his medical examination. It is deposed that 4-5 person were fighting outside the shop contrary to his complaint. It is further deposed that while fighting with each other they gave beating to PW-1 with Danda. The accused also removed pant of PW-1 and had inserted wooden Danda in his anal. The deposition is totally contradictory to the case of the prosecution and the complaint Ex.PW1/B. It is further deposed that on shouting by PW-1 the accused person had ran away contrary to the complaint Ex.PW1/B and deposition of Gulab Bhaiya/PW-11 that Gulab Bhaiya had intervened and separated the accused person from PW-1. Hence as per deposition of PW-1 no offence under Section 377 IPC was committed against him at the shop itself. However when the injury was not caused by carnal intercourse but by use of Danda then the nature of injury revert back to Section 367 IPC and does not remain within Section 377 IPC. The above deposition is contrary to what is stated by PW-1 in MLC Ex.PW1/A. PW-12 Dr. Ashish had attended PW-1 who had found lacerated wound 1x0.5 CM over dorsum and linear superficial traumatic lacerated fissure present over his anus which is like 6'O clock. The blood was also found oozing from his anal during examination. The injury was due to forceful insertion. PW-12 cannot tell by which particular object it was caused. His report is Ex.PW12/A. PW-15 Sh. Manoj Kumar from FSL has SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 18 of 20deposed that no semen could be detected on any of the exhibits of the complainant / PW-1 and therefore the exhibits of accused persons were not further processed for DNA examination. The detailed report is Ex.PW15/A. The FSL report Ex.PW15/A is seen. Since the human semen could not be detected on exhibits sent to FSL therefore it creates doubt that the injury on PW-1 were inflicted by sexual intercourse but it supports the version of PW-1 in his deposition dated 28.10.2016 that at the shop itself the accused persons had gave him beating and also inserted the wooden Danda in his anal. The above fact goes contrary to the story of the prosecution both as to the manner in which injury was caused but also at the place where the injury was caused on PW-1. The evidence of PW-15 does not support the story of the prosecution. Hence the PW-1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and medical evidence does not support the story of the prosecution. Therefore the evidence of Dr. Ashish / PW-7 regarding positive potency test on the accused person does not help the case of the prosecution in absence of both medical and ocular evidence in reference to injuries. If the injury was caused at the shop itself then it is not the case of the prosecution. Whereas the injury as per site plan Ex.PW14/B caused at point A remains unproved on record in view of the contradictory deposition of PW-1 and the IO/PW-14 SI Mohit Malik. The PW-1 has inserted a new story of use of Danda which was not initially the case of the prosecution either in Ex.PW1/B the complaint or in the FIR Ex.PW5/A. The site SC No. 28889/2016 FIR No.283/2016 U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 19 of 20plan was not proved on record having been prepared at the instance of PW-1. Hence in such view of the matter the case of the prosecution is doubtful benefit of which must go to the accused person. Hence it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused person.
22. In such view of the matter, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove all the charges levelled against the accused No.1 Jaswant and No.2 Lalit. The case of prosecution is rendered with inconsistencies, contradiction and inherent improbabilities and thereby doubt has arisen benefit of which must go to the accused person. Hence the accused No.1 Jaswant and No.2 Lalit stand acquitted of all the offences under Section 377/367/34 IPC. Their earlier personal bond stands cancelled and surety bond stands discharged. The documents, if any, be returned to the surety and endorsement on security documents is allowed to be de-endorsed. In terms of Section 437A Cr. P. C., accused person have furnished their bail bond as directed which will be in force for period of six months from the date of this judgment. Case property be confiscated to the State.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court JOGINDER Digitally
JOGINDER
signed by
on 21.08.2025 PRAKASH Date: 2025.08.21
PRAKASH NAHAR
NAHAR 15:05:41 +0530
(JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01)
CENTRAL/TIS HAZARI COURT
DELHI/21.08.2025
SC No. 28889/2016
FIR No.283/2016
U/Sec. 377/367/506/34 IPC
State vs. Jaswant & Anr.
Page 20 of 20