Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Sonu Sawarkar - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2013
Decided On : 27-02-2020
Pratap Shanker, Advocate, M.P. Singh, Advocate
The credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony and the admissibility of evidence played a crucial role in the court's decision.
Headnote:
IT Act - Criminal Offenses - Sections 354/367/384/34 IPC & Sections 67A and 67B of the IT Act - Section 367 IPC, Section 354 IPC, Section 384 IPC, Section 67A IT Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offenses including molestation, making a video of the act, and demanding money from the victim for deleting the video. The victim's age was proven to be about 14 years at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the prosecutrix to be credible and consistent, and upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence under the relevant sections.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the retrieval of incriminating evidence from the mobile phones, and the admissibility of the video recording.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent testimony of the prosecutrix, the retrieval of the video recording from a co-accused's phone, and the procedural aspect of objections to evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 08.01.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge in FIR No. 58/2012 registered under Sections 354/367/384/34 IPC & Sections 67A and 67B of the IT Act, Police Station Chankyapuri, Delhi whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 367/354 IPC, Section 67A IT Act and also for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. That vide order on sentence dated 10.01.2013, the appellant was sentenced as under:-
(i) rigorous imprisonment of 04 years and fine of Rs. 5,000 I- under Section 367 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months; and
(ii) rigorous imprisonment of 02 years under Section 354 IPC; and
(iii) rigorous imprisonment of 03 years under Section 384 IPC; and
(iv) rigorous imprisonment of 04 years and fine of Rs. 5000 I- under Section 67 A if the IT Act. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months
3. Briefly the facts noted by the trial court are as under:
"1.0 Prosecution case is that the accused who lived nearby, allured the minor prosecutrix to a jungle near Madhu Limay Marg, where he molested her by caressing her breasts after making her lie down on the ground; he also forcibly made her unchain his pants and made her suck his penis. He also prepared a video clip of this act on his mobile phone. Subsequently, the accused passed on this video clip to another boy namely Sanju Topo (juvenile), who lived in the neighbourhood at D-1/68, Servant Quarter, Satya Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. The said Sanju Topo (juvenile) told the prosecutrix that accused Sonu passed on her video clip to him and that he would put it on the internet. He also told her that in case she paid him Rs.l500/-, then he will not put it on the net. On which, the prosecutrix expressed her inability to pay such a large amount. Juvenile Sanju Topo then told her that she would have to pay minimum sum of Rs.800/- otherwise, he would put the video clip on the internet. The prosecutrix gave Rs.300/- to Sanju top (Juvenile) out of her savings. But, Sanju Topo (juvenile) told her that same is not sufficient and again threatened her. On which, the prosecutrix stole her mother''s tops (earrings) and locket and gave the same to Sanju Topo (juvenile).
1.1 On prosecutrix''s parents discovering the said gold articles to be missing, reported the matter to police. During investigation, the prosecutrix revealed the entire facts and that she had handed over her mother''s jewellery to Sanju Topo (juvenile). On further investigation juvenile revealed that he had already sold off the said jewellery articles. During further investigation, two mobile phones of make Nokia from the custody of accused Sonu and one mobile phone of make Rokea from Sanju Topo (juvenile) were recovered and seized and the same were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination."
4. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. The co-accused Sanju Topu, being a juvenile was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board-II, Delhi Gate, Delhi. On 30.07.2012, charge under Section 367/354IPC, 384/34 IPC and under Section 67A IT Act was framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in support of its case examined a total of 11 witnesses. The accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
6. The prosecution examined Mamta Anand, Head Mistress as PW-5 and Maman Singh Rana as PW-6 to prove the age of the prosecutrix. As per the aforementioned witnesses deposed that as per the school record of the prosecutrix, her date of birth was 13.07.1998. A copy of the School Admission Form and the supporting affidavit of the father of the prosecutrix given at the time of admission in Class-V was exhibited as Ex. PW5/A & Ex. PW5/B respectively. The relevant entry of the admission register was exhibited a
