IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.
Lal Mohammed - Appellant
Versus
The State(NCT Of Delhi) - Respondent
CRL.A. NO. 1065/2018
Decided On : 24-01-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. victim's testimony is a crucial part of the case. (Para 2) |
| 2. court's careful examination of evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments presented by the respondent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. principles regarding evidence of child witnesses. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. pocso act applicability in this case. (Para 35) |
| 7. maintaining original judgment and conviction. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J. - Present appeal arise out of judgment dated 27.07.2018 and order of sentence dated 30.07.2018 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court (POCSO), South District, Saket Courts in Sessions Case No. 6913/2016, in FIR No. 528/2012, registered under Sections 376 /506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ''IPC'') read with Sections 4 /5(l)(m)(n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ''POCSO'') at Police Station Sangam Vihar, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant-accused guilty and sentenced him as follows:
"Hence, in my considered opinion, the convict does not deserve any leniency and interest of justice would be met if the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as under:-
(1). Rigorous imprisonment for "Life " for the commission of the offence punishable under section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences POCSO Act, 2012 (Act 32 of 2012), and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand only).
(2). Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years for the commission of the offence punishable under section 506 Part-II of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .
[7] Since, the convict is awarded sentence under section 6 r/w section 5(1) & (n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hence no separate sentence is awarded to him for offence punishable under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE
[8] Ordered accordingly. All the sentences shall run concurrently."
2. The facts, as elaborated by the trial court are extracted in extenso, as follows: -
"[2] The brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2012, when Investigating Officer (IO)/Insp. Kamini Gupta was posted as a Sub-Inspector at PS-Ambedkar Nagar, on that day, on the directions of senior officers, she reached the PS-Sangam Vihar, where the victim, namely, T" (PW1, whose full particulars are withheld in order to conceal the identity) was found present alongwith her Mausi, and she made a complaint against her father Lal Mohammed that he has been committing rape upon her under the threat to kill her. The Investigating Officer got counseled the victim girl from the ''Prayatn NGO''. The victim T" gave her statement to the Investigating Officer that "[She resides at the given address (withheld in order to conceal her identity) of her maternal grandmother along with her father Lal Mohammed (the accused) and her Mausies (sisters of her mother). She stated that when she was a child, her mother had expired and thereafter, her father married to her Mausi, namely, ''SP'' (the sister of her mother). She has one elder brother who is studying in 11 th class and she is studying in 8 th class. She further stated that in the year 2009, when she was in 5 th class, at that time, her father Lal Mohammed came near to her and called her towards him. She went to him, he sat on the bed and touched and kissed on her breasts. Thereafter, he used to do such acts with her as and when he would get time. She further stated that in the year 2010, she does not remember the date, but in the evening time when she was studying, her father Lal Mohammed came into the room and asked her to lie down as he has to tell her something. Subsequently, her father Lal Mohammed started removing her wearing salwar and when she resisted to his such acts, he slapped her two-three times, and when she tried to scream, he gagged her mouth and committed rape upon her. After committing rape upon her, L
Arumugam vs. State (2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130 : AIR 2009 SC 331
Baby Kandayanathil vs. State of Kerala
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Bantu @ Naresh Giri vs. State of M.P (2001) 9 SCC 615
Bihari Nath Goswami vs. Shiv Kumar Singh
Dattu Ramrao Sakhare vs. State of Maharashtra
Dinesh @ Buddha vs. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771
Gagan Bihari Samal vs. State of Orissa reported as (1991) 3 SCC 562
Lillu @ Rajesh &Ors. vs. State of Haryana : (2013) 14 SCC 643
Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. (2009) 11 SCC 334 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1352
Rafiq vs. State reported as (1980) 4 SCC 262
Raja Ram Yadav vs. State of Bihar
Rameshwar vs. State of Rajasthan 1952 SCR 377
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary reported in AIR 2018 SC 5412
State of Karnataka vs. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75
State of M.P vs. Munna Choubey & anr. 2005(2) SCC 710
State of M.P vs. Santosh Kumar (2006) 6 SCC 1
State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384
State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh (2004) 1 SCC 421 : 2004 SCC (Cn) 307 : AIR 2004 SC 1290
State of U.P. vs. Naresh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324
State vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cn) 580 : AIR 2009 SC 152
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657 : JT (2010) 12 SC 287
Suryanarayana vs. State of Karnataka
Vijay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 191
Wahid Khan vs. State of M.P reported in (2010) 2 SCC 9
Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 5160
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.