IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.
State (GNCT of Delhi) - Appellant
Versus
Vicky - Respondent
Crl.L.P. 418 of 2018
Decided On : 07-12-2018
JUDGMENT
Siddharth Mridul, J. (Oral)--There can be no manner of doubt that a conviction for committing penetrative sexual assault can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. [Ref: Boby vs. State, Crl.A 1119/2014; Vishnu (alias) Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2006) 1 SCC 283: 2006(1) JCC 78; State of M.P vs. Dayal Sahu, reported as (2005) 8 SCC 122)]. However, it is equally well established that, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be creditworthy and inspire confidence.
2. The State has instituted the present petition seeking grant of leave to assail the judgment dated 04.04.2018, in Session Case No.106/2014, arising out of FIR No.170/2014(hereinafter referred to as the `subject FIR') under sections 376D/109 Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with sections 04/06/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short `POCSO') registered at Police Station-Bharat Nagar; whereby the Trial Court has specified the operative portion.
3. In sum and substance, it is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as the `victim'), along with her mother came to the police station at 11:50 pm on 25.03.2014 and made the following statement:
c;ku fd;k fd eSa mijksDr irs ij vius eEeh ikik ds lkFk jgrh gw1/21/21/2 vkSj 4th class esa i<<+rh gw1/21/21/2A dy fnukad 24.03.14 dks lkFk 2.30 cts y{eh tks esjh friend gS eq>>s Vicky ds ?kj ysdj x;h Fkh rc ogka ij dksbZ ugha FkkA ?kj dh dq.Mh can Fkh vkSj [kqyk gqvk rkyk yVdk Fkk vkSj ogka ij dksbZ ugha Fkk dqN nsj ckn ogka ij rhu yksx vk;s oks yksx [kkuk ysdj vk;s Fks] ftlesa ls ,d us drink dj j[kh Fkh] mlds ckn geus [kkuk [kk;k] fQj y{eh us eq>>ls dgk fd vktk dke djok ys rks eSaus dgk rw eq>>s igys ?kj NksM+ dj vktk rw pkgs ftruk jg ysuk] mlus dgk fd eSa rqEgs lqcg NksM+ nwaxh] ij eSaus dgk fd ugha eq>>s tYnh NksM+ ns rks cksyh fd eSa rsjh eEEh dks lc dqN le>>k nwaxh] vkSj eq>>ls cksyh fd rw xUnk dke djok ys rks rq>>s iSls feysaxs rks eSaus euk dj fn;k fQj mlus eq>>s eEeh dh dle nh rks eSa y{eh ds lkFk lks x;hA fQj jkr esa y{eh us Vicky vkSj mlds Uncle ds lkFk xyr dke fd;k fQj Vicky esjs ikl vk x;k vkSj cksyk fd esjs lkFk dj ys rks rq>>s isls feysaxs ugha rks esjs ls cqjk dksbZ ugha gksxk vkSj fQj Vicky us esjs lkFk xyr dke fd;k] fQj lqcg dks y{eh tc vius ?kj tkus yxh rks eSa Hkh ihNs ls fudy x;h vkSj vius ?kj vk x;h fQj viuh eEeh dks lkjh ckr crk nhA rc y{eh eq>>s ysdj Fkkus esa vk x;hA muds f[kykQ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tk, vkius esjk c;ku fy[kk] lqu fy;k Bhd gSaA
rHkh f'kdk;r us gkftj Fkkuk vkdj viuk c;ka iq'rgtk rgjhj djk;k] ftl ljljh rkSj iwNrkN ds ckn NGO dks cqykdj yM+dh dh Counselling djokbZ rFkk BJRH Hospital ls vide MLC No.-75587/14 ij medical djk;k ftlesa Dr. us A/H of Sexual assault rgjhj Q+jek;k] ftl ij yM+dh ds c;ku ls gkykr ls eqykfgtk MLC ls o Counselling Report u ls vijk/k u/s-376 IPC rFkk 4POCSO dk ljt+n gksuk ik;k tkrk gS fygktk rgjhj gtk cxZt dk;eh eqdnek cnLFk Ct. Ramchander no. 1536/NW vjlky Fkkuk gSA eqdnek ntZ jftLVj djds u0 eqdnek ls b<213>yk nh tk;sA eu SI e'k#Q ckrQ~rh'k gwA
4. On her statement, the subject FIR came to be registered and the victim was both medically examined, as well as, counselled.
5. Subsequent thereto, at the instance of the victim, the IO is stated to have prepared the site plan of the place of incident, but was unable to arrest the accused, since the premises was found locked. Subsequently, the statement of the victim was also recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') by the Magistrate concerned on 28.03.2014 and the respondents herein, as well as, a juvenile Laxmi were arrested.
6. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The following charges were framed against the respondents:
I) Respondent No.1
(i) Charges for commission of offence punishable under section 363 IPC read with 109 IPC and punishable under section 4 read with 3(a) of POCSO Act and in the alternate section 376(2) (i) IPC
II) Res
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.