- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dipti Bhardwaj v. State Of Haryana By Public Prosecutor
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a medical doctor, was charged under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly preparing a medico-legal report (MLR) in a rape case involving two minor girls with the intention of helping the accused escape liability. The prosecution examined ten witnesses; only one witness, Jai Prakash (PW-9), testified that on 2 April 1992 he saw the appellant talking to Bhim Singh, the elder brother of one of the rape accused. The rape accused were later convicted under Section 376 IPC on the basis of reports prepared by two other doctors.
During the appellant’s examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the fact that PW-9 allegedly saw her with Bhim Singh was not put to her. A High Court order dated 6 October 2005, followed by an order dated 21 October 2005, remanded the matter so that these questions could be put to the appellant. The present appeal challenges those High Court orders. Nearly twenty years have elapsed since the alleged incident.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence on record, particularly PW-9’s statement, discloses any incriminating circumstance sufficient to sustain a charge under Section 218 IPC against the appellant.
- Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to put additional questions to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC after a lapse of nearly two decades.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that Section 218 IPC requires proof that a public servant acted with the intention of saving an accused person from legal punishment. The only witness who offered any supporting testimony, PW-9, merely stated that he saw the appellant talking to Bhim Singh and expressly denied hearing any part of their conversation. The Court held that even if PW-9’s statement is accepted at face value, it does not establish the requisite mens rea or any overt act by the appellant intended to shield the accused from prosecution.
The Court further noted that the rape accused had already been convicted on the strength of reports prepared by other doctors, undermining any allegation that the appellant’s report actually aided them. Given the complete absence of evidence on the essential ingredient of intent, the Court concluded that continuing the trial would be futile. Consequently, the High Court’s order of remand, aimed solely at putting additional questions to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, lacked purpose and could not be sustained.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders of 6 October 2005 and 21 October 2005, thereby terminating the remand proceedings against the appellant.
Implications: The immediate effect is to end the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant under Section 218 IPC. The judgment turns on the absence of evidence establishing the necessary intent and does not articulate any broader legal principle, hence it is unlikely to set new precedent.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 6.10.2005 in Criminal Revision No. 2277 of 2004 and order dated 21.10.2005 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57395 of 2005 in Criminal Revision No. 2277 of 2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The present appellant had been charged under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter being referred to as “the IPC”) that she had prepared the MLR in a case of rape of two minor girls to help the accused persons. To prove that charge, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and only one of them Jai Prakash PW 9 supported the prosecution case only to the extent that on the relevant date on 2.4.1992, he had seen the elder brother of the accused talking to the appellant who was the Doctor and prepared the MLR. His only evidence had been as under:
"I saw Bhim Singh talking to Doctor Dipti Bhardwaj and saw him coming out with her and did not hear their talks."
2. BhimSingh is the elder brother of one of the accused and it may also be pertinent to mention that the accused persons have already been convicted under Section 376, IPC on the basis of the report prepared by other two doctors. This very fact that this witness PW 9 had seen the appellant coming out with Bhim Singh had not been put to her while her statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded and that is why the matter is pending since 1992 and period of 20 years has already lapsed. The matter had been remanded to put these questions to her. However, the question which has been raised before this Court as to whether there is any incriminating circumstance even if the statement of Bhim Singh PW 9 is accepted to be true. Basically it is mensrea, an intention, to help the accused so that they may escape the liability to rape. PW 9. himself had not made any statement that there had been any negotiation or he had heard any conversation between them rather he had denied to have heard anything between them. In such circumstances, it would be an exercise in futility to proceed with the trial. There is nothing on record to meet the requirements under Section 218, IPC as it is necessary to establish that the public servant had acted with the intention to save the accused. In the absence of basic ingredient being proven, no fruitful purpose would be served to sustain the order of remand. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
Appeal allowed.
Alert