Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Ravinder @ Shati - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL.A.1046 of 2019 & CRL.M.(BAIL)1621 of 2019
Decided On : 26-11-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Deepak Kansal & Mr. Yadunandan Bansal, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP with ASI Tulli Ram, PS Badarpur.
The consistent testimony of the prosecutrix and corroboration by witnesses are crucial in establishing guilt in cases of sexual harassment and assault.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Conviction under Section 325 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 325; POCSO Act, 2012, Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant challenged the application of POCSO Act, contending that the age of the prosecutrix had not been established. The court found the prosecutrix consistent in stating her age and upheld the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of inflicting injuries on the prosecutrix and persistently making advances to her, leading to a conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The conviction under Section 325 of IPC was modified to Section 324, and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
Issues: The issues included the age of the prosecutrix, identity of the appellant, nature of injuries, and appropriate application of legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The consistent testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by witnesses, established the appellant's guilt. The court also clarified the nature of injuries and upheld the conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Final Decision: The appellant's appeal was disposed of, and the conviction under Section 325 of IPC was modified to Section 324. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment and fine under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
JUDGMENT :
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The appellant Ravinder @ Shati s/o Sh. Dhanpal vide the present appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2019 of the learned ASJ-01 (POCSO) South East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant has also assailed the impugned order on sentence dated 17.07.2019 of the learned Trial Court whereby on conviction vide the impugned judgment date 11.07.2019, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- qua the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- qua the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with it having been directed that both the sentences would run concurrently and in the event of the failure of the appellant to pay the fine, he would further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month qua each of the offences with the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 having been accorded to the appellant.
2. Further, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, South East was directed to provide restorative and compensatory justice to the victim by payment of Rs.50,000/- as a compensation to be paid to the victim.
3. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that he has already undergone two (2) years one (1) month and seven (7) days of incarceration, which is also so indicated vide the impugned judgment wherein it has been expressly observed to the effect that the convict had remained in custody from 16.04.2014 to 12.08.2016 and vide the impugned order on sentence dated 17.07.2019, had been admitted to bail.
4. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012 do not apply in the instant case, in as much as the age of the prosecutrix being below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence had not been established, that the birth certificate of the child had not been proved through appropriate testimony and that the birth certificate even showed a different parentage from the actual parentage of the prosecutrix. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that in view of the minority of the child having not been established during the trial under the POCSO Act, 2012, the appellant was entitled to be acquitted in relation thereto and that the contents of the police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the averments made in the FIR as well as the testimony of the complainant examined as PW-4, do not substantiate the prosecution version in relation thereto.
5. It was also sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant that whereas, it was the contention of the appellant that there had been repeated attempts of stalking of the prosecutrix by the appellant, there were no previous complaints that had been proved and that the falsity of the prosecution version was brought out from the said aspect itself.
6. Submissions were made on behalf of either side i.e. on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel for the appellant and on behalf of the respondent/ State by the learned APP for the State.
7. The Trial Court Record was requisitioned, which has been received and perused.
8. At the outset, it is essential to observe that on a perusal of the FIR lodged on the statement of the prosecutrix on 11.04.2014 and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 on 22.04.2014 as well as her testimony on oath recorded on 04.11.2015, the prosecutrix is consistent that her age was 15 years at the time of the occurrence on 11.04.2014 and as rightly observed by the learned Trial Court the age of the prosecutrix as being that of 15 years at the time of the occurrence, was not challeng
