SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Del) 1283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.
Allaudeen - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 970 of 2018
Decided On : 26-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, Mohit Bangwal, Advocate, Aashaa Tiwari, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the careful evaluation of the testimonies of child witnesses, the consideration of demeanor in court, and the significance of minor contradictions in the testimonies.

Headnote:

POCSO - Sexual Assault - POCSO Act, 2012, Section 6, Section 506 IPC - The judgment discusses the testimonies of the prosecutrixes, the corroboration of their statements, and the benefit of doubt given to the accused regarding penetrative sexual assault. The court concludes that the appellant-convict committed sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of POCSO Act upon the prosecutrixes and sets aside the conviction and sentence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, convicting the appellant-convict under Section 8 of POCSO Act instead.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the conviction of the appellant-convict under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code for sexually assaulting two minor prosecutrixes. The prosecution's case was based on the consistent statements of the victims and their medical examinations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the testimonies of the prosecutrixes to be consistent and credible, ruling out the possibility of tutoring. The court also noted the demeanor of one of the prosecutrixes in court, indicating fear after identifying the accused. The court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused regarding penetrative sexual assault but convicted him under Section 8 of POCSO Act.

Issues: The issues revolved around the consistency and credibility of the testimonies of the prosecutrixes, the possibility of tutoring, and the benefit of doubt regarding penetrative sexual assault.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for careful evaluation of the evidence of child witnesses and the corroboration of their testimonies. It also highlighted the significance of demeanor in court and the consideration of minor contradictions in the testimonies.

Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellant-convict under Section 6 of POCSO Act were set aside, and he was convicted under Section 8 of POCSO Act. The conviction and order on sentence under Section 506 IPC were confirmed, and the appellant-convict was sentenced to imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 10,000.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. - Present appeal has been filed by appellant-convict challenging the judgment dated 5th May, 2018 and the order on sentence dated 8th May, 2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (North-West) - 01, Special Court, POCSO, Rohini District Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 53123/2016 arising out of FIR No. 185/2016 registered with Police Station Ashok Vihar, whereby he had been convicted under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 POCSO and two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The case of prosecution, as noted by the Trial Court, is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"1. The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on 29.03.2016, after entrustment of DD no.26- A, SI Rama Saroha and Ct. Sonika reached at the informed place i.e. CSA Colony, where ASI Raj Kumar, Ct. Satpal, both the child victims P and A, mother of child victim P and father of the child victim A were found present and father of child victim A produced the accused before her. SI Rama Saroha got both the child victims counseled through NGO counselor, got them medically examined at BJRM Hospital and also got accused medically examined. Thereafter, she made inquiry from the complainant (mother of "P") and recorded her statement, wherein she stated that on that day, at about 7.00 pm, her neighbour V.S. caught the accused red-handed while removing the underwear of his daughter i.e. child victim A and she also went there and on inquiry, child victim A told her that 8/10 days prior, accused took her to his house, got his children out of the jhuggi, removed her underwear as well as his clothes and lie upon her and touched his penis to her vagina, then ejaculated and when she raised alarm, accused left her and threatened that in case, she disclosed about the acts of accused to anyone, he will kill her by cutting her neck. Child victim A also disclosed that accused had also committed wrong act with the child victim P. Thereafter she made inquiry from her daughter / child victim P, who also told that accused took her to his house a day before yesterday and asked her to remove her underwear, for which, she refused and then, accused slapped her, pushed her, removed her underwear forcibly and also removed his pant and lie upon her and touched his penis to her vagina and then ejaculated and thereafter, he threatened her that in case, she disclosed about the acts of accused to anyone, he will kill her by cutting her neck and because of the fear of the accused, child victim A and P did not disclose about his acts to anyone. She requested for legal action against the accused. On the basis of statement of the complainant as well as MLC, present case FIR was registered. Site plan of the place of incident was prepared. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The potency test of the accused got conducted at RML Hospital. Statement of both the child victims U/s 164 CrPC were got recorded. Documents regarding the date of birth of child victims were collected and thereafter, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed before this court.

2. After filing of the charge sheet in the matter, the copy thereof, was supplied to the accused. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and on 11.07.2016, charges u/s 5(m) of POCSO Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), punishable u/s 6 of Act and u/s 506 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."

FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT

3. The conclusion of the Trial Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"25. If the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is applied to the facts of the present case then it wou





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top