Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item No. 129. Dr. Kedar Nath Tripathy & ... on 3 May, 2023
6. Perusal of the record shows that there are
contradictions in the original complaint of the
complainant and her statement u/s. 164 CrPC, as in
the original complaint, she has stated that on
CR. No. 587/2024 Smt. 'P' v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 5 of 42
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
Date:
GOYAL 2026.05.12
16:38:07
+0530
24.08.2022 at around 2.00 pm when she was going
from her house to military road then her nanad namely
Renu stated her that if she goes through the street of
her to be husband namely Rajan @Raju then he will
beat her and he started abusing her. Thereafter, her
father in law came at the spot whereas in her statement
recorded u/s 164 CrPC she has not stated anything
about her sister in law namely Renu and has simply
stated that when she was going to Vijay Chowk then
boyfriend of her nanad namely Renu met her and
started abusing her. Further, there is one CCTV
footage relied upon by the prosecution in support of
its case. In the footage, it is seen that at around 03.08
pm, the complainant was standing alone in front of the
house of the accused Rahul Ranjan. However, in her
complaint, complainant stated that she was passing
from there which is in contradiction with what is
evidently can be seen in the CCTV footage.
Thereafter, the complainant started having argument
with the accused Rahul @ Ranjan and the accused
no.2 (mother in law) and father in law of the
complainant reached at the spot to pacify the matter.
However, it can be seen clearly in the footage that
the complainant was also saying some heated words
to the accused persons which are not audible. Further,
at around 3.16 pm, complainant was having very
heated arguments and saying many thing to accused
Rahul @ Ranjan and on the instigation of the
complainant, the accused Rahul @ Ranjan caught
hold the complainant once from her neck but it is
evident from the CCTV footage that he did not touch
the complainant inappropriately as alleged by her in
her complaint and her statement recorded u/s 164
CrPC. Accused no.2 Meera Bai can only be seen to
pacify the matter between the complainant and the
accused Rahul Ranjan. The accused Renu can not be
seen in the said video and she was not at the place of
occurrence, Perusal of the record further shows that
apart from the complaint, there is no public witness of
the alleged incident. Therefore, there are no sufficient
material on record to frame charge against her also.