The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations and inconsistent testimonies do not suffice for a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 147/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-01 (East), Karkardooma Court, Delhi assails the judgment dated 28.02.2017 and order on sentence dated 21.03.2017 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 354A and 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO Act).

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant/accused repeatedly stalked and harassed PW2 for several months and, on 14.02.2014, abused and threatened her near her house. Hence, as per the final report/chargesheet, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354D IPC and Section 12 of the PoCSO Act.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A FIS of PW2, given on 14.02.2014, Crime No. 123/2014, Ghazipur Police Station, i.e., Ex. PW1/A FIR was registered by PW6, ASI. PW6 conducted investigation into the crime and on the completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report dated 29.07.2014, alleging commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned offences.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.PC. As per order dated 16.12.2014, a Charge under Sections 354A, 354D IPC and Section 12 of the PoCSO Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined, and Exhibits PW1/A, PW1/C, PW1/D, PW1/DA, PW2/A-D, P1, PW4/A, PW5/A-C and PW6/A-F were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

7. After questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (SeeMoidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on hand, the accused has no case that non- compliance of Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him. No oral or documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the appellant.

8. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment and order on sentence, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354A and 354D IPC and Section 12 of the PoCSO Act and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 354A , and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 354D . No separate sentence ha