Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Sudam Ansari - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2020
Decided On : 21-07-2020
Vijay Lath, Advocate, Luvinder Sofat, Advocate
The importance of critically analyzing evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal cases.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Juvenile Justice - Section 4 of the POCSO Act - [Section 4 of the POCSO Act] - The court discussed the age of the prosecutrix and the issue of consent, highlighting contradictions in evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove the charges. The court emphasized the importance of critically analyzing evidence before convicting an accused and ultimately acquitted the petitioner due to lack of proof.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act for maintaining physical relations with a minor. The prosecution's case was based on the alleged kidnapping and physical relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix.
Finding of the Court:
The court found material contradictions in the prosecution's case and failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix and her lack of consent, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Issues: The age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident and whether she consented to the physical relationship with the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for critical analysis of evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The judgments passed by both the Courts below were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The revision petition has been filed challenging the correctness of judgments passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, S.A.S. Nagar and the learned Special Court convicting the petitioner under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act").
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.08.2014, the first informant-Mohammad Sadeek got recorded his statement to the effect that he is working as a labourer. He has three daughters and two sons. His eldest daughter Karina, aged about 15 years, resides in village Reekpur, State of Uttar Pardesh, whereas his two daughters and two sons are residing with him at SAS Nagar (Mohali). The prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, had studied upto 5th class. She used to go to learn stitching work from the wife of Santokh Lal, residing nearby. On 19.08.2014, the prosecutrix had gone to the house of Santokh Lal at 11.00 a.m. but she did not return back home. After having searched for her, the matter was reported to the police. The first informant stated that he had suspicion that some unknown person might have enticed her away.
3. The prosecutrix was recovered from residential room in the factory on 12.11.2014. After medical examination, she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final report. The petitioner was nominated as accused in the report. The Court further found that the petitioner is a juvenile. Thus, the petitioner was tried by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, S.A.S Nagar.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
"1. PW.1 Constable Jagtar Singh;
2. PW.2 The Prosecutrix;
3. PW.3 Dr. Maninder Kaur;
4. PW.4 Dr. Vijay Bhagat:
5. PW.5 Mohammad Sadeek, First Informant;
6. PW.6 Dr. Parminder Singh;
7. PW.7 Assistant Sub Inspector Palwinder Singh;
8. PW.7 Lady Head Constable Karamjit Kaur;
9. PW.8 Surabhi Prashar, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class;
10. PW.9 Constable Manpreet Singh;
11. PW.9 Head Constable Sewa Singh;
12. PW.10 Rajwinder Kaur, Teacher;
13. PW.12 ASI Ramesh Kumar; And
14. PW.13 Santosh Devi."
5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of juvenile in conflict with law under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him, however, he denied the same and pleaded false implication. The petitioner did not lead evidence in his defence.
6. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, found that there are material contradictions in the case set up by the prosecution with reference to kidnapping and forcibly taking away of the prosecutrix by the petitioner. However, the learned trial Court held that the prosecutrix was minor at that time and the petitioner had maintained physical relations with her and therefore, he is guilty of rape. Thus, the learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner under Section 363, 366A, 120-B, 342, and 506 IPC, however, convicted the petitioner under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo detention in the Special Home for a period of two years under Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
7. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Special Court with modification to the effect that the petitioner cannot be convicted simultaneously under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act keeping in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act and therefore, the petitioner was held guilty under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. However, the quantum of sentence was maintained.
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and with their able assistance, gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below as also the record requis
