Panchkula: The Panchkula Sessions Court has overturned a 2021 trial court conviction against a 59 year old city doctor, holding that the earlier judgment suffered from serious legal and factual flaws. The appellate court cleared the doctor of all charges, bringing closure to a case that began with allegations made in 2016.
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had misread the key evidence.
The case dates back to August 18, 2016, when a Panchkula resident alleged that she visited the doctor’s private hospital between 6 pm and 7 pm to submit medical certificates for friends. According to the complaint, the doctor called her into his office, closed the door, made obscene gestures, expressed romantic interest, restrained her from leaving and touched her inappropriately. She also alleged that he threatened her when she resisted.
An FIR was registered on August 23, 2016 at Sector 14 police station, five days after the alleged incident.
In October 2021, the trial court convicted the doctor under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongful confinement, Section 354A for sexual harassment and Section 506 for criminal intimidation.
The court sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 342, three years under Section 354A and two years under Section 506. The trial court also ordered the doctor to pay ₹30,000 as compensation to the complainant.
The doctor challenged the verdict and filed a criminal appeal in November 2021.
After reviewing the entire record, the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, found major inconsistencies in the prosecution case. The court noted that in her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant stated that the incident occurred while she was seated. However, during trial, she claimed she was standing at the time.
The judge held that this contradiction was material and affected the credibility of the allegations, particularly given the physical layout of the outpatient department.
The Sessions Court also relied on testimonies of hospital staff and the record custodian, who stated that the OPD had a partially transparent glass door and regular movement of staff and patients.
No independent witness supported the claim that the complainant was confined or restrained. The court observed that the environment described made wrongful confinement unlikely.
The court found the five day delay in registering the FIR significant and inadequately explained, especially since the complainant admitted to interactions with the accused during the intervening period.
On the charge of criminal intimidation, the Sessions Court held that the alleged threats were vague and did not meet the legal threshold required under Section 506 of the IPC.
The appellate court clarified that if the ₹30,000 compensation ordered by the trial court had already been paid, it should be treated as litigation costs and released to the complainant.
(Rh/ARC)
