Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
Brij Lal - Appellant
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 818 of 2015
Decided On : 07-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Jivesh Tiwari
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Gupta
Consistency of victim's statements, corroboration of evidence, and lack of plausible defense are crucial in upholding a conviction under the POCSO Act.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Sexual Assault - Section 6 POCSO Act - Summary: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for committing an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The judgment discussed the consistency of the victim's statements, the corroboration of evidence, and the lack of plausible explanation for the accused's defense. The court also considered the delay in lodging the FIR and cited relevant case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for sexually assaulting a child aged around four and a half years. The victim's consistent statements and corroboration of evidence led to the conviction. The defense of false implication was not supported by plausible explanation. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained and considered by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the appellant based on the consistency of the victim's statements, corroboration of evidence, and lack of plausible defense. The delay in lodging the FIR was considered non-fatal.
Issues: Consistency of victim's statements, corroboration of evidence, defense of false implication, and delay in lodging the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of the victim's statements, corroboration of evidence, and lack of plausible defense to uphold the conviction. The delay in lodging the FIR was considered non-fatal based on relevant case law.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. The appellant's conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was upheld.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. Present appeal is directed against a judgment dated 24.11.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 119/2013 emanating from FIR No. 266/2013 PS Vasant Kunj (South) by which the appellant -Brij Lal was held guilty for committing offence under Section 6 POCSO Act. By an order dated 05.12.2014, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs.10,000/-.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 26.06.2013 at around 11.00 a.m. the appellant sexually assaulted the victim ‘X’ (assumed name) aged around four and a half years at his house. The incident was conveyed to the police and Daily Diary (DD) No. 60A (Ex.PW-1/A) came to be recorded on 29.06.2013 at 11.40 p.m. The investigation was assigned to W/SI Brahmo Devi who went to the spot. After recording the statement of victim’s mother (Ex. PW-5/A), she lodged First Information Report. ‘X’ was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. To bring home the appellant's guilt, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all and relied upon various documents. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. The Trial Court committed grave error to base conviction on the testimonies of interested witnesses without independent corroboration. It overlooked vital infirmities and inconsistencies in the version narrated by PW-4 (the victim) and PW-5 (Indu) -her 'mother'. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that the victim is consistent throughout and no valid reasons exist to disbelieve her.
4. The victim, in the instant case, is a child aged around four and a half years. This age finds reflection in the school record (Ex.PW-3/A) where her date of birth has been described to be 24.10.2008. As per admission register (Ex.PW-3/C), ‘X’ got admission in Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhyalaya, Rajokari, New Delhi, on 28.03.2013. PW-3 (Satya Pal), Lab Assistant, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhyalaya, Rajokari, New Delhi, has proved the entry in admission form (Ex.PW-3/A). Date of birth recorded in school records at the time of X’s admission is not under challenge. No sound reasons prevail to disbelieve the date of birth as it was also recorded in the certificate issued by MCD (Ex.PW-3/B). The appellant did not suggest any other date of birth. X’s parents never anticipated such an unfortunate incident to happen in future to manipulate her age at the time of getting admission in the school. Needless to say, the victim was aged around 5 years at the time of occurrence.
5. The unfortunate incident took place on 26.06.2013 at around 11.00 a.m. when ‘X’ had gone to appellant’s house to play. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant admitted that he used to live in the adjoining rented accommodation and the victim used to come and play in the room. In the complaint (Ex.PW-5/A), Indu – victim’s mother gave graphic account of the incident and disclosed as to how and under what circumstances ‘X’ was defiled and ravished. The appellant was named in the complaint to be the perpetrator of the crime to whom the child witness used to call ‘Buddha’. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Mark A) the victim implicated the appellant for the crime and assigned a specific and definite role to him. In her Court statement as PW-4, she proved the version given by her to the police and before th
