Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
State (NCT of Delhi) - Petitioner
Versus
Saan Mohd.@ Sonu & Anr. - Respondent
CRL.L.P. 186 of 2020
Decided On : 03-03-2020
POCSO - Acquittal of accused under Sections 363/366/34 IPC and Sections 6 of POCSO Act - [Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The accused were acquitted of charges under Sections 363/366/34 IPC and Sections 6 of POCSO Act. The prosecutrix alleged that she was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements and lack of evidence linking the accused to the incident led to the acquittal.
Issues: The primary issue was the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the testimony of the victim of sexual assault must inspire confidence and be free of blemish or suspicion. It also highlighted that minor contradictions should not be a ground for rejecting the evidence. However, in this case, the discrepancies in the prosecutrix's statements and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the leave petition, upholding the acquittal of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
CRL. M.A.4692/2020 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 186/2020
1. By the present Leave Petition filed under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-09 (POCSO) West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, whereby the respondent No. 1/ Saan Mohd. @ Sonu was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 363/366/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO’) and Respondent No. 2/Neeraj was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 363/366/34 IPC and Sections 17 POCSO.
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned by the learned Trial Court are reproduced as under:
“1. The accused persons namely SaanMohd. @ Sonu and Smt. Neeraj have been sent for trial by Police Station Ranhola for the offences punishable under Section 363/364/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC); accused Smt. Neeraj under Section 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) and accused Shan Mohd. @ Sonu for trial under Section 6 of POCSO Act.
2. The accused persons have been prosecuted on the allegations that on 22.07.2014 at about 04.00 pm at House No. R-4, R-Block, Vikas Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Ranhola, they in furtherance of their common intention had kidnapped the victim with an intent that she might be forced to illicit intercourse. Accused Neeraj has also been prosecuted on the allegations that in the intervening night of 22/23.07.2014 at DDA Park, Hastsal Village, Uttam Nagar, she intentionally aided the commission of offence of penetrative sexual assault by the accused Shan Mohd. @ Sonu with the prosecutrix and accused Shan Mohd. @ Sonu has been prosecuted on the allegations that in the intervening night of 22/23.07.14 at DDA Park, Hastsal Village, Uttam Nagar, he had committed penetrative sexual assault with the prosecutrix.
3. The case of the prosecution is that upon receipt of DD No.13A dated 23.07.2014, H Ct. Ram Nath alongwith Ct. Vikas Kumar reached the spot where complainant “A” (identity withheld) met them and got recorded his statement Ex.PW3/A which is translated as under:
“I reside at H.No.R-4 R Block, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and do the work of welding. On 22.07.2014 at about 04.00pm, my daughter (victim) went with Neeraj, who lives in our neighbourhood, to the house of brother in law (Jija) of Neeraj. When I asked Neeraj about my daughter, she told that she has left my daughter at the milk dairy near the house and went to her sister’s in law (Bhabhi) house. I searched for my daughter but she did not find. Now, I am very sure that my daughter has been seduced by someone and she went away. My daughter should be searched and legal action should be taken.”
On the basis of the complaint Ex.PW3/A, H.Ct. Ram Nath got registered the FIR of this case. In search of victim, SI Neelam alongwith staff reached at Vikas Nagar and when the victim was not found, they returned back to PS at about 07.00 pm. Meantime, mother of the victim came in the PS along with victim and informed that the police officials of Dabri area left victim to her house; she did not ask the names of those police officials nor she knows them. SI Neelam recorded the statement of the victim and got conducted her medical examination from SGM Hospital. The exhibits of the victim handed over by the doctor was also seized and Section 376/120B/34 IPC and 6 POCSO Act were added in the investigation. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. through Ld. M.M. after taking the victim from Nirmal Chhaya was recorded.
On 24.07.2014, the accused Shan Mohd. @ Sonu and on 26.07.2014, the accused Neeraj was arre
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
