IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Hima Kohli, Vinod Goel, JJ.
Shambhu Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 920 of 2018
Decided On : 24-05-2019
POCSO Act - Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 IPC - [POCSO Act, Section 6, Section 377 IPC] - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor boy aged 4 years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. The court relied on the testimonies of the victim's mother and the victim, which were corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. The court emphasized the credibility of the child witness and the need for careful scrutiny of the evidence in cases of child sexual assault. The court also dismissed the plea of contradictions in the witness statements, stating that minor contradictions do not dilute the entire prosecution case. The court upheld the order on sentence, maintaining rigorous imprisonment for life for the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 4-year-old boy under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. The victim's mother and the victim testified that the appellant had committed the assault, which was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. The appellant denied the prosecution case, claiming false implication and attributing the victim's bleeding to scratching with a sua.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the victim's mother and the victim to be credible and reliable, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of evidence in cases of child sexual assault. The court upheld the conviction of the appellant and dismissed the plea of contradictions in the witness statements. The court also maintained the order on sentence, upholding rigorous imprisonment for life for the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the credibility of the testimonies of the victim's mother and the victim, the admissibility of medical and forensic evidence, and the plea of contradictions in the witness statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the credibility of the child witness and the need for careful scrutiny of evidence in cases of child sexual assault. The court also dismissed the plea of contradictions in the witness statements, stating that minor contradictions do not dilute the entire prosecution case.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor boy under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. The court also maintained the order on sentence, upholding rigorous imprisonment for life for the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Hima Kohli, J.
The appellant has assailed the judgment and order on sentence dated 16.05.2018 and 19.05.2018 respectively passed by the Court of the learned ASJ-01/Special Judge, POCSO Act, North, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No.58941/16 arising from FIR No.80/2016, registered at Police Station: Alipur under Section 377 IPC and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act'). In the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim, who is a minor boy aged 4 years, which is punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. By the order on sentence dated 19.05.2018, observing that the punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is more stringent than the punishment prescribed under Section 377 IPC, the learned ASJ has awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.30,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 90 days.
2. The facts of the case as gathered from the record are that on 27.01.2016, SI Gajender Singh, who was posted at Police Station: Alipur, received a PCR call that one male person had committed a wrong act with a small boy at Teekri Khurd. The said information was recorded vide DD no.12A and the case was marked to SI Gajender Singh for investigation. SI Gajender Singh accompanied by another police personnel went to the spot and found that the beat constable was already present there. The beat constable produced the appellant and on inquiry, SI Gajender Singh came to know that the appellant had sodomized a four year old boy. The name of the victim has been anonymized in the impugned judgment as A, that of his mother as Smt. U and of his father as Sh. K. On coming to know that the victim had already been taken to SRHC Hospital, SI Gajender Singh proceeded there and met his parents. The appellant was also present at the hospital. Smt. U pointed towards the appellant as the aggressor. Both, the victim and the appellant were got medically examined by the concerned doctor.
3. In the meantime, the I.O., W/SI Tejwati arrived at the hospital alongwith an official belonging to an NGO and took over the investigation. The statement of the victim's mother, Smt. U was recorded. She stated that she has two sons and the victim, A is her elder son. On 27.1.2016, at 3 PM, when she was sitting on the terrace and knitting, her son, A went to the room of the appellant situated in the same building for eating chicken rice. After some time, A rushed upstairs and told her that he was bleeding from the anus. On asking him how the bleeding had taken place, A informed her that the appellant had done something wrong with him. At this, the complainant raised a hue and cry and people from the locality gathered there. Arun Kumar, a distant relative of Smt. U, who was also residing in the same building, apprehended the appellant from a nearby shop and reported the matter to the police on phone. Based on her statement, the rukka was prepared and forwarded to the Police Station.
4. While at the hospital, the I.O. received a sealed pullanda of the exhibits of the appellant and the victim. The appellant was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter, the police officers accompanied the appellant, the victim and his family members to the scene of the crime. At the instance of the appellant, one plastic mattress having blood stains and some yellowish liquid were found in his room and the relevant portion was cut out, placed in a plastic poly bag and seized. The I.O. prepared a site plan at the instance of the victim, duly witnessed by SI Gajender Singh. She also recorded the statement of the witnesses, including Arun Kumar, who had informed the police about the incident. On the basis of the rukka, an FIR was reg
Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab
Jayabalan vs. UT of Pondicherry
Kalpnath Rai vs. State (Through CBI)
Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar
M. Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Mohd. Kalam vs. State of Bihar
Nivrutti Pandurang Kakote and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Pala Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
Panchhi & Ors. vs. State of U.P.
Paras Ram vs. State of Haryana
Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Raj Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan
Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Seeman alias Veeranam vs. State
State (Delhi Administration) and Ors. Vs. Laxman Kumar and Ors.
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjay
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.