Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Ravinder - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 552/2020
Decided On : 05-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate, for the Appellant, Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP, for the Respondent.

The sufficiency of the testimony of a child witness in convicting an accused and the need for careful evaluation of the testimony, emphasizing the reliability of the witness.

Headnote:
POCSO - Conviction Appeal - Section 12 of the POCSO Act - [Section 12 of the POCSO Act] - The court discussed the sufficiency of the statement of a child witness in convicting an accused, citing established legal principles and precedents. It emphasized that if the testimony of the child victim inspires confidence and is reliable, it is sufficient to record a conviction. The court also highlighted the need for careful evaluation of the testimony of a child witness, noting that the witness must be reliable. The judgment emphasized the importance of the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offenses and the need to avoid seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon it.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the conviction of the appellant under Section 12 of the POCSO Act based on the testimony of a child victim who alleged indecent behavior by the appellant. The child victim's testimony was central to the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, casting doubt on the prosecution's case. It concluded that the appellant's involvement was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant of the charges.
Issues: The key issue was the reliability of the testimony of the child victim and the sufficiency of her statement in convicting the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the testimony of a child witness carefully and highlighted the sufficiency of the child victim's testimony in convicting an accused. It also stressed the need to avoid seeking corroboration of the victim's statement before relying upon it.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment on conviction and the order on sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charges.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant against the judgment on conviction and order on sentence dated 30.09.2020 and 12.10.2020 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (POCSO), South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in SC No. 440884/16 arising out of FIR No. 573/2014 registered under Sections 354/509 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Dwarka North, Delhi.

2. Vide the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2020, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and vide the order on sentence dated 12.10.2020, he was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of three years, alongwith payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo SI for a period of three months. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.

3. The brief facts of the case, as noted by the Sessions Court, are as under :-

"1. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.08.2014, the child victim was residing with her parents in a rented premises. Her father was a rickshaw puller and her mother used to work as a cook in domestic households. Her mother used to leave the house between 7 to 8 am in the morning and she used to reside with her brothers and sisters. One man used to come and stand outside her house and used to open the zip of his pants and show her his private part. He even used to show currency notes to her and used to ask her to sit on his bicycle. She used to immediately close her door.

On the day when this complaint was filed, the child victim saw the accused sitting in a bhandara which was being held in the street outside her house. She went and told about the previous acts of the accused to her mother. Her mother caught hold of the collar of the accused and her father also reached the spot. Police was called. Her statement was recorded and FIR was registered against the accused under Section 354/509 IPC r/w Section 8 POCSO Act. Investigation was conducted. Accused was arrested and after thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Statement of the child victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which she completely corroborated her first complaint and also stated that the accused also used to harass her friend N'. N' had also not disclosed this fact to her mother. She further stated in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that the accused even attempted to come into her house by climbing over the wall. She stated in her statement that on the day of the langar also, he was doing the wrong act when he was caught hold by her mother and her relatives including some uncles and aunties. "

4. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet in the case was filed under Sections 354/509 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. Vide order dated 01.06.2016, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, to which he pled not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. While the child victim had stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that her friend 'N' was also harassed, no such fact was mentioned at the time of recording of her testimony before the Court. It was also contended that while the child victim in her examination stated that her statement was recorded in the police station, Const. Dharmender (PW-2) stated that SI Rattan Singh (PW-9) called one lady officer at the spot, whereafter W/Const. Mintu (PW-3) reached and recorded the statement of the child victim, who in turn deposed that it was SI Rattan Singh (PW-9) who recorded the statement.

6. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the child victim had correctly identified the appellant as the person who committed the offence. It was also submitted that the inconsistencies in the statement