Delhi District Court
State vs Santosh Sharma on 25 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-03, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sh. Manuj Kaushal
State Vs. Santosh Sharma
FIR No.108/2017
Police Station : H.N.Din
Under Section: 23 PC& PNDT (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. number of the case :2981/2018
2. Date of commission of offence :27.05.2017
3. Date of institution of the case :04.05.2018
4. Name of the complainant :Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal
:Smt. Santosh Sharma
5. Name, parentage and address of W/o Sh. P.C Sharma
the accused R/o H.No.397/5,Govindpuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi
:23 PC& PNDT (Prohibition of
6. Offence complained or proved
Sex Selection) Act 1994
7. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 25.03.2026
FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 1 of 16
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Briefly stated, it is the prosecution's case that on 27.05.2017 in between 12:00pm to 6:00pm at Family Clinic, E-28, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS H.N. Din, accused being an employee in the said clinic rendered her professional and technical services and determined the sex of fetus of patient Pinky and received amount of Rs,. 8,800/- in contravention of Section 23 of PC and PNDT (prohibition of Sex selection) Act, 1994 and committed an offence u/s 23 of PC and PNDT (prohibition of Sex selection) Act, 1994.
ACCUSATION AGAINST THE ACCUSED
2. Vide order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the learned predecessor of this Court, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 23 PC& PNDT (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994 was framed against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses who have deposed as follows:-
(i) PW-1 Neeraj Aggarwal has deposed that on 27.05.2017 a complaint was received from PNDT, team of Sonipat District by District Magistrate, South-East New Delhi, regarding sex determination Act at the Family Clinic, Jangpura Extension. He further deposed that DM deputed him alongwith PNDT Team of South-East District led by Dr. Garima Jaiswal and PNDT Team of FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 2 of 16 Sonipat District led by Dr. Adarsh Sharma. He further deposed that one decoy customer was prepared by the team of Sonipat District with Rs. 8,800/-. He further deposed that during the raid, accused and Dr. Meenu Singh were caught red handed while taking money for doing Sex Determination Test of the Decoy customer. He further deposed that he was called inside the clinic and an amount of Rs. 8,800/- was recovered from the accused persons. He further deposed that a complaint Ex.PW1/A was given by the District Nodal Officer, PNDT, South East, which was forwarded by him to the concerned SHO. He further deposed at the spot, proceedings were prepared by the PNDT inspection team and prescribed format of PNDT inspection proforma i.e. Ex.PW1/B was filled and the same was signed by both the PNDT inspection teams. He further deposed that currency notes were seized by the team vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and certificate of registration Ex.PW1/D was seized. He further proved the ultrasound report pertaining to decoy customer Pinky i.e. Ex.PW1/E. He correctly identified accused and the case property Ex.P-1. He further proved the sample seal Ex.PW1/F and USG register Ex.PW1/G. He further deposed that the said register was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H. He further deposed that after completion of all the proceedings the documents were handed over to the IO. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(ii)PW-2 Ms. Pinky has deposed that on 19.07.2016 she alongwith her husband came to Delhi and at around 1:00-2:00pm she felt FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 3 of 16 severe pain in her abdominal. She further deposed that she was 4-
5 months pregnant and they took a TSR to a nearby clinic situated in Lajpat Nagar. She further deposed that her ultrasound was done by an aged lady. She further deposed that as soon as she came outside of the clinic, 8-10 persons came there and took her inside the clinic. She further deposed that the said persons went through her ultrasound report and made query from the persons of the clinic. She further proved her ultrasound report Ex-PW1/E. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel.
(iii)PW-3 Dr. Garima Jaiswal has deposed that on 27.05.2017 she was working as Nodal Office of PC and PNDT District South- East Delhi. She further deposed that on 26.05.2017, a complaint was received in the office of District Magistrate regarding illegal sex determination being conducted in South-East District. She further deposed that on 27.05.2017, a joint inspection was conducted by team consisting of Mr. Neeraj Agarwal (SDM, Defence Colony), Dr. Adarsh (Nodal Officer, PC and PNDT, Sonipat), Dr. Anushri Nayar, Ms. Anvita Kaushik, Ms. Shailja Suri, Mr. Arvind Kumar and herself at Family Clinic, Jangpura. She further deposed that Rs. 8,800/- marked and signed by Dr. Adarsh had already been given to one decoy patient by Sonipat Team. She further deposed that on 27.05.2017 the decoy patient Pinky under went an ultrasound at the abovesaid clinic and Dr. Meenu Singh alongwith accused was present in the ultrasound room. She further deposed that the ultrasound was conducted on FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 4 of 16 the decoy patient by the accused. She further deposed that before conducting the ultrasound no F-form was filed. She further deposed that when the decoy patient came after the ultrasound, all the team members entered in the ultrasound room and accused was seen handling the ultrasound machine and Dr. Meenu Singh was also present inside the room. She further deposed that decoy patient informed them that accused conducted the ultrasound on her. She further deposed that on search, Rs.700/- was found from the reception, Rs. 4,100/- from Ms. Meena (nurse) and Rs.4,000/- were recovered from accused. She further deposed that the total amount of Rs.8,800/- recovered were marked currency notes which were handed over to the decoy patient. She further deposed that on inspection, it was observed that USG ANC Register was updated till 26.05.2017 only and no F-Form of the decoy patient was recovered during the search. She further deposed that the USG machine was sealed by the SDM Defence Colony and the documents Ex.PW1/F i.e. OPD Slips, USG prints of Pinky and other documents were seized. She further deposed that police officials from PS H.N. Din were called at the spot and the currency notes were handed over to the police official in a sealed envelope. She further deposed that she made a complaint Ex.PW1/A to the SHO PS H.N. Din. She further proved the covering letter dated 29.05.2017 which is Ex.PW2/A. She further proved the inspection performa Ex.PW1/B, the seizure memo Ex.PW1/C and PNDT ANC Register Ex.PW3/D which was seized by the raiding team. She correctly identified accused and the case property Ex.P1. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 5 of 16 the accused.
(iv)PW4 HC Robin Panwar deposed that on 27.05.2017, he joined the investigation alongwith SI Manmeet Malik and went to the Family Clinic where they met Sh. Neeraj Agarwal and other members of the team. He further deposed that at the spot he met with the lady namely Pinky who got her ultrasound conducted for sex determination. He further deposed that SDM also recovered 8,800/- from the reception of family clinic and the SDM gave a written complaint Ex.PW1/A upon which SI Manmeet prepared a tehrir and got the FIR registered through him. He was duly cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(v) PW5 WC/Ct. Sonu deposed that on 27.05.2017, she alongwith SI Manmeet Malik, Neeraj Agarwal (SDM Defence Colony) and other members of the raiding team went to the Family Clinic where they met one lady Pinky. She further deposed that SDM recovered Rs. 8,800/- from one of the drawers of the Family Clinic and handed over the same to IO/SI Manmeet Malik in white color envelope. She further deposed that the SDM gave a written complaint Ex.PW1/A upon which SI Manmeet prepared a tehrir and got the FIR registered through Ct. Robin. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(vi) PW6 Dr. Adarsh Sharma has deposed that on 26.05.2017, a secret information was received in PNDT Cell Sonipat that a lady tout namely Meena is involved in illegal sex determination of the FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 6 of 16 fetus in Lajpat Nagar area. He further deposed that based on the information a team consisting of him and Dr. Anvita Kaushik was created. He further deposed that Ms. Meena was contacted through a secret informer and a deal was fixed by Ms. Meena for sex determination for a sum of Rs. 8,800/-. He further deposed that Sonipat PNDT arranged a decoy pregnant lady namely Pinky after taking her consent and arranged Rs.8,800/- (2000x4, 500x1, 100x3) and the details of the notes was noted on a paper i.e. Mark A which was signed by a civil surgeon and decoy patient. He further deposed that the date of sex determination was fixed on 27.05.2017 and the information was given to District Magistrate, South-East, Delhi. He further deposed that a team was constituted by the DM South-East, Delhi. He further deposed that the Sonipat Team came to Delhi on 27.05.2017 and disclosed the whole matter to Delhi team. He further proved intimation letter Ex.PW1/DA. He further deposed that Pinky alongwith Rs. 8,800/- was sent to tout Meena who took Rs. 8,800/- from Pinky and took her to the Family Clinic, Jangpura Extension, Lajpat Nagar. He further deposed that after some time, Meena and Pinky came out from the family clinic and after getting signal from Pinky, both the teams intercepted Meena and Pinky. He further deposed that Pinky informed them that her ultrasound and sex determination has been done and she handed over Rs.8,800/- to Meena. He further deposed that on searching Meena, Rs.4,100/- was recovered from her and the serial no. of the currency notes matched with the list of decoy currency notes. He further deposed that he went inside the clinic and found that Dr. Minu Singh had FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 7 of 16 conducted the ultrasound. He further deposed that Pinky identified that ultrasound was done by Dr. Meenu and accused. He further deposed that Pinky disclosed that during the ultrasound Dr. Meenu was sitting on the chair and ultrasound was used by accused. He further deposed that on searching, Rs. 4,000/- (2000x2) was recovered from accused and Rs. 700 (500x1, 100x2) was recovered from the cash counter. He further deposed that recovered notes were found to be matching with the decoy currency notes. He further deposed that the spot memo and seizure memo Ex.PW1/C was prepared. He further deposed that inspection perform Ex.PW1/B was prepared on the spot and Form F was not filled in case of decoy Pinky. He further deposed that the ultrasound OPD register Form-B (Ex-PW3/DB) and patient file of Pinky was seized and the same bears his signatures. He further deposed that ultrasound machine was sealed with the seal of SDM and same was handed over to Dr. Meenu Singh. He further proved the sample seal Ex.PW1/F. He correctly identified the case property however, he could not identify the accused. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(vii)PW7 SI Ram Kumar has deposed that in 2017 the investigation of the present matter was marked to him and he obtained the sanction under PC-PNDT Act. He further proved the request letter Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW1/DB. He further deposed that after obtaining the sanction, he filed charge- sheet in the Court. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 8 of 16
(viii)PW8 Insp. Manmeet Malik has deposed regarding the investigation carried out by him. He deposed on the same lines as the other witnesses therefore, his entire testimony is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. He further proved the tehrir Ex-PW8/A, notice u/s 41A CrPC Ex.PW8/B and bound down memo Ex.PW8/C. He correctly identified the accused and the case property. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
(ix)PW9 Sh. B.S. Jaglan IAS deposed that in 2017-2018, after receiving a request letter for sanction u/s 28 PC PNDT Act, he granted the sanction to the IO on 27.03.2018 vide sanction letter Ex.PW9/A. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
4. After examination of above-said witnesses, PE was closed.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
5. Statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating evidence/documents were put to her one by one. In her defence the accused stated that she was only the receptionist in the said clinic and she was not allowed to go inside the ultrasound room. She further stated that her job was only to make entry and send the patient to the doctor. She further stated that on the date of the incident several persons came inside the clinic and collected the registers and took her signatures on various documents. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence therefore, DE was closed.
FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 9 of 16 ARGUMENTS
6. Learned APP for the State has argued that the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses have established guilt on the part of accused and that the accused ought to be convicted for the offence punishable U/s 23 of PC & PNDT Act (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further argued that the decoy patient has not supported the prosecution's case. It is further stated that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses which casts a doubt on the prosecution's case. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the cognizance in the present matter has been wrongly taken as no complaint by the appropriate authority has been filed in terms of Section 28 of the act. In support of his argument, Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Manoj Krishan Ahuja Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2023 DHC 2718.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Analysis and Findings
7. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:-
"i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused.
It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook.
FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 10 of 16 Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
8. In view of the aforesaid settled position, let us proceed to examine whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused rendered her professional or technical services and determined the sex of fetus of patient Pinky for a sum of Rs 8800/- and thereby committed an offence u/s 23 of PC & PNDT Act.
9. At the outset, this Court deems it fit to address the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the cognizance in the present matter is bad in law as no complaint has been made in terms of Section 28 of PC & PNDT Act. In the present matter the cognizance was taken upon the charge-sheet filed by the IO and no complaint was ever filed by the appropriate authority or any other person in compliance of Section 28 of PC & PNDT Act. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manoj Krishan Ahuja Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2023 DHC 2718, this Court is in agreement with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the cognizance has been taken in contravention of the provisions of Section 28 of PC & PNDT Act. However, it is settled law that this Court has no power to review its orders. In the given circumstances, FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 11 of 16 since the order dated 04.05.2018 has not been challenged and is still in force. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to decide the matter on merits.
10. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined PW-2 i.e. the decoy patient Ms Pinky on whom the sex determination test was allegedly conducted by the accused. PW-2 has not supported the prosecution's case and has stated that on the date of incident after feeling a severe pain in her stomach and she went to a nearby clinic where her ultrasound was conducted. She further stated that suddenly 8-10 persons came there and took her inside the clinic. She correctly identified her ultrasound report Ex.PW1/E. In her cross-examination by Ld. APP nothing has come on record to suggest that accused Santosh had done the sex determination test upon her or had disclosed the sex of the fetus to her. On the contrary, her testimony regarding pain in her stomach is corroborated by the testimony of PW-5 W/Ct. Sonu who in her testimony has deposed that Pinky was crying and further deposed that she was informed by the patient that she was weeping due to the pain.
11. Furthermore, a perusal of the testimonies of the remaining witnesses shows that there are material inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding the manner in which the accused persons were caught. PW-1 Neeraj Aggarwal in his examination in chief has deposed that during the raid Dr. Meenu Singh and accused were caught red handed while taking money for doing the sex determination test of the decoy patient. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not accompanied the raiding team inside the clinic. He further deposed that he was immediately called inside the premises when the accused persons were caught red handed and thereafter all the FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 12 of 16 proceedings were conducted in his presence. From a perusal of the aforesaid testimony of PW-1 it is clear that PW-1 did not witness the accused conducting the sex determination test on the decoy patient.
12. PW-3 Dr. Garima Jaiswal in her testimony has deposed that on 27.05.2017, decoy patient Pinki underwent ultrasound at the Family Clinic and Dr. Meenu Singh alongwith receptionist Santosh Sharma were present inside the ultrasound room and the ultrasound was conducted by accused. She further deposed that when decoy patient came outside the ultrasound room, all the team members entered the ultrasound room where accused was handling the ultrasound machine in the presence of Dr. Meenu Singh. She further deposed that the team confirmed from the decoy patient as to who conducted the ultrasound and the decoy patient identified accused as the person who did her USG. However, in her cross-examination she has deposed that the decoy patient was confronted outside the Ultrasound room alongwith accused when she came out of USG Room post her USG. PW-3 in her testimony has nowhere stated that the raiding team had caught the accused red handed while she was carrying out the sex determination test or while she was receiving the marked currency notes. The said testimony of PW-3 is therefore, not corroborated by the testimony of PW-1 who has deposed that the accused was caught red handed by the raiding team.
13. Furthermore, PW-4 HC Robin Panwar who was part of the raiding team instead of corroborating the prosecution's case has further weakened it. PW-4 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 27.05.2017 he alongwith the other members of the raiding team went to the Family clinic where they met one lady Pinky who got her ultrasound conducted for sex FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 13 of 16 determination. However, PW-4 in his cross-examination he has stated that he had neither seen Pinky at the clinic nor saw the recovery of Rs 8,800/- which is materially inconsistent.
14. PW-6 Dr. Adarsh has deposed that decoy patient Pinky was sent to the tout Meena and on receiving Rs 8,800/- tout took Pinky to Family clinic. He further deposed that after sometime Meena and Pinky came out of the family clinic and on receiving the signal about conducting the sex determination. He has further deposed that after going inside the Family Clinic they found that the ultrasound was done by Dr. Meenu Singh and by another lady namely Santosh. He had reiterated the said facts in his cross- examination. However, PW-9 IO/Inspector Manmeet Malik in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the accused was present in the reception area when the raiding team went inside the rooms of the clinic.
15. From a perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses it is clear that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the conducting of the ultrasound by the accused and the manner in which they came to know about the sex determination test being conducted upon the decoy patient. Furthermore, none of the prosecution witnesses deposed to having seen the accused conducting the ultrasound or disclose the sex of the fetus to the decoy patient. In the given circumstances, the testimony of the witnesses regarding conducting of the ultrasound by the accused and disclosing the sex of fetus to the decoy patient is not based on direct evidence and remains uncorroborated.
16. Further, the alleged recovery of the marked currency notes from the accused/clinic is also doubtful for the reasons stated hereinafter. A perusal FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 14 of 16 of the list of the marked currency notes i.e. Mark A shows that the original list of the currency notes have not been proved during the trial. In his cross- examination PW-6 Dr. Adarsh has deposed that he cannot tell where the original list of currency notes is. In the given circumstances, the said list of currency notes cannot be said to have been proved. Furthermore, there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the recovery of the said currency notes. PW-1 Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal has deposed that the currency notes of Rs 8,800/- were recovered from the accused persons i.e. accused and Dr. Meenu Singh. In his cross- examination he has stated that he cannot tell the exact place of recovery of currency notes but they were recovered from accused Santosh. PW-3 and PW-6 have deposed that Rs 4,100/- was recovered from the accused, Rs 4,000/- was recovered from Mrs. Meena and 700/- were recovered from the reception of the clinic. However, PW-4 has deposed that Rs 8,800/- were recovered from the reception of the family clinic and PW-5 has deposed that Rs 8,800/- were recovered from one of the drawers of the family clinic. The said testimonies show that the prosecution has failed to place on record the original documents containing the identification of the marked currency notes and there are material contradictions between the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the recovery of the currency notes from the accused which further casts a doubt on the prosecution's case.
17. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that there are serious lacunae in the investigation done in the present matter. Despite it being the case of the prosecution that it was tout Meena who had arranged the sex determination test of the decoy patient still no investigation appears to be done qua her.
FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 15 of 16 The said lack of investigation is further highlighted by the fact that part of the marked currency notes were allegedly recovered from her.
18. Furthermore, no investigation has been done by the IO qua Dr. Meenu Singh and the owner of the clinic for non-maintenance of the proper records in the said clinic. There is nothing on record to suggest that it was the duty of the accused herein to fill the Form F and other relevant documents before conducting of the ultrasound on the patients.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused conducted the ultrasound of the decoy patient or determined the sex of the fetus or communicated the same to the decoy patient. Furthermore, the recovery of the currency note is for the reasons stated above doubtful. In the given circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the accused.
20. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt therefore, accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 23 of the PC & PNDT Act.
21. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed22. Announced in open Court on 25.03.2026. MANUJ by MANUJ KAUSHAL KAUSHAL Date: 2026.03.25 15:46:21 +0530 (MANUJ KAUSHAL) JMFC-03/SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI FIR No.108/2017 PS H.N.Din State Vs. Santosh Sharma Page No. 16 of 16