A Panchkula court has acquitted a 59-year-old city-based doctor of all charges, including sexual harassment, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation, holding that the trial court had wrongly assessed the evidence and arrived at an unsustainable conclusion.
Conviction Set Aside After Appeal
Allowing the doctor’s appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, set aside the October 2021 conviction, observing that the findings of the trial court were based on a misreading of evidence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Background of the Case
The doctor, a resident of Sector 17, was earlier sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 342 IPC, three years under Section 354-A IPC and two years under Section 506 IPC, along with a compensation of Rs 30,000. The case was registered by Sector 14 police in August 2016.
Allegations Made in FIR
According to the FIR, the complainant alleged that on August 18, 2016, she visited the doctor’s private hospital to collect medical certificates. She claimed the doctor called her into his office, closed the door, made vulgar gestures, professed love, restrained her from leaving and touched her inappropriately, besides threatening her with dire consequences.
Contradictions in Prosecution Version
After re-examining the record, the appellate court noted material contradictions in the complainant’s statements. While one version suggested the alleged incident occurred when she was sitting, her court testimony claimed it happened when she was standing, raising doubts about the physical feasibility of the allegations.
No Proof of Wrongful Confinement
The court observed that the allegation of the door being bolted was contradicted by hospital staff and records, which showed the OPD had a partially transparent glass panel with routine movement of people. No independent hospital witness supported the claim of isolation or restraint.
Improvement and Hearsay Evidence Flagged
The court also noted that explicit sexual allegations surfaced only at later stages of testimony, terming it “progressive amplification.” The testimony of the complainant’s mother was held to be hearsay, and the trial court was faulted for treating it as corroborative evidence.
Delay in FIR and Final Verdict
The five-day delay in lodging the FIR, despite interaction between the parties after the alleged incident, was held to be significant and unexplained. With these findings, the appellate court acquitted the doctor of all charges, directing that any deposited compensation be treated as legal costs and released to the complainant.
