Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Dev Nath Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Cr.A. 617 of 2020 & Cr.M.(BAIL) 8419 of 2020
Decided On : 29-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Archit Upadhayay, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Ms. Charu Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant in CRL.A. 617/2020 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 8419/2020.
Mr. Rajneesh Bhaskar, Advocate (DHCLSC) through VC, for the Appellant in CRL.A. 636/2020 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 8466/2020.
Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP SI Dharmendra, PS Gokalpuri and SI Ashutosh Mishra, PS Bhajanpura, for the Respondent.

The need for corroboration in cases involving minor victims, the evaluation of entire material on record, and the consideration of minor contradictions in testimonies.

Headnote:
POCSO Act - Conviction u/s 354A and section 10 read with section 9 of POCSO Act - [IPC, POCSO Act] - [IPC 354A, POCSO Act 10, POCSO Act 9] - The court discussed the testimonies of the victims, their parents, and corroborative evidence to establish the appellant's guilt. The court also considered the age of the victims at the time of the incident and the minor contradictions in their statements. The court emphasized the seriousness of the accusations and the need for corroboration in the evidence. The court found no fault in the judgment and dismissed the appeals.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for offences u/s 354A IPC and u/s 10 read with section 9 of the POCSO Act based on allegations of sexual assault on minor victims while driving a school bus. The appeals sought to set aside the common judgment and order on sentence passed by the ASJ-1 (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty of the charged offences based on the testimonies of the victims, their parents, and corroborative evidence. The court considered the age of the victims at the time of the incident and minor contradictions in their statements, emphasizing the seriousness of the accusations and the need for corroboration in the evidence. The court dismissed the appeals, finding no fault in the judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victims' testimonies, the age of the victims at the time of the incident, minor contradictions in their statements, and the need for corroboration in the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration in cases involving minor victims and considered minor contradictions in their statements. The court also highlighted the seriousness of the accusations and the importance of evaluating the entire material on record. The court's decision was based on the consistency of testimonies and corroborative evidence.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the common judgment and order on sentence passed by the ASJ-1 (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi were upheld.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J.

1. Inadvertently, in the order dated 01.02.2023, the fact that the appeals have been heard and reserved for judgment has not been noted. On 13.05.2022, it was directed that rather than hearing the applications for suspension of sentence, the appeal should be heard. Hence, appeals were heard on 16.01.2023 and 01.02.2023.

2. These are appeals seeking setting aside of the common judgement dated 27.02.2020 and common order on sentence dated 06.03.2020 passed by the ASJ-1 (North East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable u/s 354A IPC and u/s 10 read with section 9 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/-for conviction u/s 10 of POCSO Act and a period of 1 year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-u/s 354A IPC anda further period of 1 year rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

3. Combined facts of the case are-

i. FIR No. 812/2014 was registered on 13.08.2014 the basis of statement of "S" (herein referred to as "victim No.1") studying in fifth class who stated that she, along with her younger brother used to commute together in the same school bus. The appellant herein was the driver of the said school bus. The allegations against the appellant are that he used to stop the bus on the way, come to the seat and used to touch the victim on her chest and waist and also used to touch the private parts of another girl (victim in FIR No. 1072/2014, herein referred to as "victim No.2"). It is also alleged that he used to threaten to kill them if they ever told anybody about these acts.

ii. The victim No.1further stated that she informed her teacher Ms. Anu Anand about the acts of the accused, who scolded the appellant but thereafter, sent her back home with the accused in his vehicle. The victim No.1 informed her mother about these incidents and therefore, FIR No. 812/2014 was registered against the appellant and he was arrested.

iii. Another FIR was registered against the appellant on the basis of statement of victim No.2's father. It is stated that when he was informed about the incident of victim No.1, he enquired from his daughter if she experienced similar incidents since she used to travel on the same school bus as victim No.1. Upon his enquiry, victim No.2 revealed that similar incidents happened with her which led to filing of the FIR No. 1072/2014.

4. Vide order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned ASJ, FIR No. 812/2014 in CRL.A. 617/2020 and FIR No. 1072/2014 in CRL.A. 636/2020 were clubbed together.

5. The Sessions Court after examining the witnesses, analysing the evidence and hearing the arguments, has acquitted the appellant for offences u/s 354D , 354B and 506 IPC and convicted him u/s 354A and section 10 read with section 9 of POCSO Act in both the cases.

6. It is stated by Mr. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the appellant that there are material contradictions in the statement of both the victims regarding:

A. Date/month of the alleged incident:

i. As regards CRL.A. 617/2020 (victim No.1):

a. He submits that in the complaint dated 13.08.2014, there is no mention of date/month of incident. He further submits that on the other hand, in her statement u/s 164 Cr.Pc, she has stated "Shivratri se ek din pehle ki baat hai..." and later on stated "Shivratri ke agle din Devnath ne gaadi...."

b. It is stated that the victim does not know the meaning of Shivratri and therefore, it is highly improbable that the victim would remember if the incident had occurred one day before Shivratri or one day after, as stated by her in the statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. This casts a shadow of doubt over the happening of the incident.

ii. As regards CRL.A. 636/2020 (victim No.2):

a. He submits that in the statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.PC, victim No.2 has given contrary dates of the incident being 26.07.2014 and 25.07.2014 respectively.

b. He further relies on the leading question