The admissibility of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in corroborating the witness and the importance of examining the prosecutrix and other relevant witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.

The present appeal has arisen out of the judgment of conviction dated 05.05.2018 and order of sentence dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in FIR No. 554 dated 24.08.2016 under Sections 363, 366A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO') registered at Police Station Suraj Kund, Faridabad.

2. As per the prosecution, complainant-Aarti gave a statement to the effect that when she was sleeping along with her children, her daughter/prosecutrix aged about 12 years, left the house without informing her and did not return. The complainant had suspected that her daughter had been kidnapped and illegally confined by someone. The family tried to trace her but all in vain. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered under Section 346 IPC and during investigation the date of birth of the prosecutrix was obtained from her school and after enquiring the facts from her father, namely, Dilip Kumar, offence under Section 346 IPC was deleted and offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC were added in the FIR. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was recovered on 10.01.2017 from the house of appellant-Roopa Kashyap situated at Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi. In the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in the presence of legal aid counsel and thereafter, medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix was conducted and offences under Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act were added. Appellant-accused Roopa Kashyap was arrested on 12.01.2017. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded.

3. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 363, 366-A, 370 of IPC and Sections 6 and 17 of POCSO Act on 21.03.2017 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 17 witnesses and also relied upon the documents Ex.PA to Ex.PV, Ex. PC/1 to PC/3, Ex.PD/1, PE/A and Ex.PX.

5. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant-accused pleaded innocence and false implication but she did not adduce any defence evidence.

6. In the present case, complainant Aarti, mother of the prosecutrix had stepped into the witness box as PW-1. She stated that she had suspected that her daughter had been abducted by someone and had been confined with a bad intention. Her daughter was recovered after 5-6 months by the police from Molarband Badarpur, New Delhi from the house of the appellant. She further stated that though she did not know Nayak @ Rakesh, he came to her residence and narrated the fact that her daughter had been confined by the appellant. This fact was brought to the notice of the police and her daughter was recovered in an unconscious condition. On the request of the police (Ex.PE/A), Dr. Aparna Gupta (PW-4) had medicolegally examined the prosecutrix vide MLR Ex.PE. Ms.Renu Rampal Vice Principal (PW-2) had brought the original admission register of the school of the prosecutrix in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded as 04.02.2004 and the said document was produced on record as Ex.PC. Copy of the admission form Ex.PC/1 and copy of school leaving certificate Ex.PC/2 had also been placed on record.

7. After taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment of conviction dated 05.05.2018 and order of sentence dated 07.05.2018, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-