Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
Pankaj - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. 839 of 2015
Decided On : 17-09-2018
POCSO - Sexual Assault - POCSO Act, Section 5(m), Section 6 - The judgment discusses the offense under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act and the punishment under Section 6. It also highlights the compensation awarded to the victim under Section 357A of the CrPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the Appellant being found guilty of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 6-year-old victim. The prosecution presented evidence including medical, forensic, and victim testimony to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Appellant guilty based on the victim's testimony, medical and forensic evidence, and rejected the defense evidence. The court also enhanced the compensation amount for the victim.
Issues: The primary issue was the guilt of the Appellant in committing the sexual assault. The court also addressed the question of appropriate compensation for the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's testimony, medical and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the Appellant. It also invoked Section 357A of the CrPC to enhance the compensation for the victim.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the Appellant's guilt upheld and the compensation amount enhanced for the victim.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 16th January 2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (North-West)-01 (HEREAFTER THE ‘TRIAL Court’) in SC No.40/2014 arising out of FIR No.239/2013 registered at PS Vijay Vihar finding the Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 5(m) POCSO Act punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act. It also seeks to assail the order on sentence dated 20th January 2015 whereby he was sentenced for the aforesaid offence by the trial Court to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The trial Court also directed the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) (North-West) (NW) to grant compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the victim child to be used for his welfare and rehabilitation.
Charge
3. The Appellant was charged with having committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim (PW-6) aged 6 years thereby committing the aforementioned offence at around 10:20 am on 5th May 2013 at his house at Budh Vihar Phase-I, Delhi.
Case of the prosecution
4. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant was working in the factory situated in the neighbourhood of the victim’s home. On 5th May 2013, at around 10:30 am, PW-6 went to his mother (PW-5) and told her that he was suffering due to pain. He pointed to the Appellant and told his mother that the Appellant had done something to the rear side (anal region) of PW-6. PW-5 then went after the Appellant and confronted him but the Appellant denied any wrongdoing. When she removed the underwear of PW-6, she noticed blood. She grew suspicious and raised an alarm. Public persons collected at the spot and gave a beating to the Appellant. Someone called the police at 100 number.
5. The Police Control Room (‘PCR’) form (Ex.PW-7/A) shows that a call was made at 11:46 am with the information that a man had committed a wrong act (“galat kaam”) with a young boy of 7-8 years age and that the said man had been apprehended there itself. The information noted in the PCR form at 12:33 pm, after the police reached there, is that the grandmother of PW-6, i.e. PW-9, had informed the police that the Appellant had committed sexual assault on the child and that the child had been taken to hospital.
6. Sub-Inspector (SI) Virender (PW-15) of PS Vijay Vihar upon receiving the DD, reached the house along with Ct. M. Laxmaiah and was told that the child had been removed to the BSA Hospital by the PCR van. Leaving the constable at the spot, PW-15 went to the BSA Hospital.
Medical evidence
7. The MLC of the child (Ex.PW-10/A) noted that the child had been brought to the BSA Hospital at 10:45 pm on 5th May 2013 with an alleged history of sexual assault as informed by his grandmother (PW-9). The child was referred to Paediatric SR Dr. Manish whose handwriting was identified by Dr. Shiv Kumar (PW-17) of BSA Hospital. He made his observations on the MLC regarding the presence of the nail mark and the laceration over the anal region posterior with faecal matter admixed with some secretion.
8. The examination of the child by Dr. Shahnawaz Alam besides the surgery was confirmed by Dr. Rekha Diwan (PW-16) and, in particular, the observation that although the nature of the injuries was simple, the possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out.
9. The only suggestion put to these doctors in the cross-examination was that the possibility of the injury in the anal region being due to constipation cannot be ruled out. However, the FSL reports (Ex. PX and PY) left no matter of doubt that the victim had suffered sexual assault at the hands of the present Appellant.
Forensic evidence
10. The biological examination revealed that human semen was detected on the underwear (Ex.1a) of the child. Further, blood was detected on the rectal swab (Ex.1g), the perianal swab (Ex.1h), and certain other exhibits. The result of the DNA examination was that “the a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
