Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
State (GNCT of Delhi) - Appellant
Versus
Vipin @ Lalla - Respondent
Criminal Leave Petition No. 445 of 2018
Decided On : 28-02-2019
POCSO ACT - Acquittal of Charges - IPC 363/366/342/376/506, POCSO Act Section 4 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony, the need for corroboration, and the evaluation of surrounding circumstances. It highlighted the principles of conviction based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the need for reliability and credibility of her statement. The court also emphasized the possibility of false implication and the need for careful evaluation of the evidence. The judgment focused on the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother, the lack of corroborative evidence, and the failure to establish the place of the incident. The court also considered the delay in registering the FIR and the lack of medical and scientific evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged that the accused forcibly took her to a room, threatened her with a knife, and committed sexual assault. The prosecution's case relied on the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother, medical examination, and circumstantial evidence. The accused denied the allegations and presented inconsistencies in the testimonies as well as lack of corroborative evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother, lack of corroborative evidence, and failure to establish the place of the incident. It also considered the delay in registering the FIR and the lack of medical and scientific evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability and credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the need for corroboration, the evaluation of surrounding circumstances, and the establishment of the place of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony, the need for corroboration, and the evaluation of surrounding circumstances. It highlighted the principles of conviction based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the need for reliability and credibility of her statement. The judgment also focused on the possibility of false implication and the need for careful evaluation of the evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the leave to appeal petition, upholding the acquittal of the accused based on the lack of substantial reasons for interference and the trial court's reasonable judgment.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
1. By this petition under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as 'Cr.P.C'), the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Court (POCSO ACT), ASJ-01, North East District, Karkardooma Courts Delhi in Session Case No. 44631/2015 in FIR No. 889/2014 registered at Police Station, New Usmanpur whereby the respondent Vipin @ Lalla was acquitted of the charges registered under Sections 363/366/342/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC') and in the alternative under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Trial Court are as under:
"(1) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.09.2014, on receipt of DD No.28A, SI Santosh went at the informed place i.e. X-125, Gali no.6, Brahampuri, New Usmanpur, Delhi. There she met ASI Mahender and Ct. Patil. Victim and her mother were also present. Victim alleged that she along with her family was residing as tenant on the ground floor of H.No.X-125, Gali no.6, Brahampuri, Delhi. On 16.09.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., she was returning home from her school. When she reached in Gali No. 8, Brahampuri, Vipin, who was residing on the first floor of her house, met her and asked her to accompany him. He also threatened her that if she did not follow his instructions, he would stab her. He caught hold of her hand. When she tried to resist, Vipin threatened her to kill her brother. Thereafter, Vipin took her to a room where he kissed her, removed her clothes and against her wishes, he established physical relations with her. On these allegations, the present FIR under Sections 363/376/342/506 IPC and under Section 4 POCSO Act was registered.
(2) During the investigation, victim was medically examined. On 10.10.2014, accused surrendered before the court and he was arrested..."
3. After investigation was over, charge-sheet against the accused was filed before the Court for the offences punishable under Sections 363/376/342/506 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and charges were framed against the respondent under Sections 363/366/376/342/506 IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. To substantiate its accusation, prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all to prove its case. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he reiterated his innocence and examined one witness in his defence.
4. The learned Trial Court, upon analysis, examination and evaluation of the prosecution evidence and after considering the rival submissions recorded acquittal in favour of the accused for the charged offences.
5. Learned counsel, Mr. Ravi Nayak, for the State, opened his submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2018 is based on conjectures and surmises and has disregarded the cogent evidences, and needs to be set aside. Learned APP further stated that conviction can be held on the sole testimony of PW-4 (Prosecutrix) even if there are minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony; that the testimony of PW-4, (the prosecutrix) and PW-10, (the mother of the prosecutrix) remain consistent and corroborative and have deposed regarding the key material facts in the case indicating the committal of the offence.
6. Mr. Ravi Nayak further contented that the factum of rape on the prosecutrix has been established by the medical examination of the prosecutrix wherein there is clear evidence of penetrative sexual assault. Learned counsel further contended that any person having sexual intercourse with a girl child below 18 years of age would be statutorily guilty of rape irrespective of the consent of the girl, and for the same the offence should fall within the purview of POCSO Act.
7. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the Trial Court placed reliance on the statement of PW-11, (Investigating Officer) but misconstrued the dimensions of the cartons, which were lying in the store room
AI
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
