Sanjay vs State Of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 1159

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri, Ashok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Sanjay - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-D-1903-Db-2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-02-2022

Advocates:
Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for the Appellant, Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana, for the Respondent.

Headnote:
Conviction - Sexual Assault - POCSO Act - [SEXUAL ASSAULT] - [POCSO ACT, Section 4] - The court discussed the evidence of the victim, medical reports, and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The court emphasized the importance of the victim's testimony in cases of sexual assault and highlighted the provisions of the POCSO Act regarding the procedure and powers of Special Courts in recording evidence of child witnesses. The court also addressed the issue of non-cross-examination of the victim and the testimony of the victim's mother and father. The judgment affirmed the conviction of the accused under the POCSO Act.
Fact of the Case:

The victim, a 4-year-old girl, was sexually assaulted by the accused in his shop. The victim's mother reported the incident to the police, leading to the registration of the FIR. During the trial, the victim identified the accused and provided a detailed account of the assault. The accused denied the charges and claimed false implication.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault under the POCSO Act based on the victim's testimony, medical reports, and witness testimonies. The court rejected the argument of non-cross-examination of the victim and emphasized the competence and reliability of the child witness. The court also addressed the conflicting statements of the victim's mother and father, ultimately affirming the conviction of the accused.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, the non-cross-examination of the victim, and the conflicting statements of the victim's mother and father.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the victim's testimony in cases of sexual assault and highlighted the provisions of the POCSO Act regarding the procedure and powers of Special Courts in recording evidence of child witnesses. The court also addressed the issue of non-cross-examination of the victim and the testimony of the victim's mother and father. The judgment affirmed the conviction of the accused under the POCSO Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the original records were returned to the trial court.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Ashok Kumar Verma, J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 27.10.2014 and order on quantum of sentence dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby accused-appellant (Sanjay) has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Offence under Section	Period of sentence	Fine imposed	In default of payment of fine
342 IPC	Simple imprisonment for one year	Rs.1000/-	Simple imprisonment for one month
376 IPC	Imprisonment for life	Rs.50,000/-	Rigorous imprisonment for two years
4ofPOCSOAct	Imprisonment for life	Rs.50,000/-	Rigorous imprisonment for two years

2. Brief facts, as culled out from the paper-book, are that on 11.05.2014, complainant-Neetu Devi along with her husband-Bushan Singh and daughter-victim came to the police station and got recorded her statement to the effect that on 10.05.2014, her daughter, aged about 04 years, had gone to the shop of Sanjay for purchasing curd. When for a long time she did not return, complainant had gone to see her, whereupon she found that her daughter was coming from the shop of Sanjay. She inquired from her daughter, where she was, then her daughter told her that uncle, wearing red T-shirt, had taken her inside the room and tried to commit rape upon her after removing her pant. Thereafter, she revealed that at that time, Sanjay was being called by some person from outside, who after leaving her inside, came outside for attending that person. She tied her trouser and came out. Thereafter, Neetu Devi asked Sanjay about the incident, whereupon he (Sanjay) got frightened, closed his shop and fled away. She narrated this fact to her husband.

3. On the basis of statement/complaint made by complainant Neetu Devi, FIR No. 166 dated 11.05.2014, under Sections 376, 511, 342 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, was registered at Police Station, Chhainsa, Faridabad. During investigation, accused-appellant was arrested, who suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PF. victim was medico-legally examined and her ossification test was got conducted. Rough site plan was got prepared. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and presented in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. Vide order dated 15.07.2014, Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Copies of challan and other documents were supplied to the accused-appellant free of costs, as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. Thereafter, finding a prima facie case, charge under Sections 342 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act was framed against the accused-appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Anoj Kumar, Draftsman (PW-1), Dr. Manjari Gupta, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad (PW-2), Dr. Ravi Shankar (PW-3), Dr. Manoj Bajaj (PW-4), Constable Amit Kumar (PW-5), EASI Lalit Kumar (PW-6), Constable Rohtash (PW-7), Constable Surender (PW-8), victim (PW-9), Neetu, mother of victim (PW-10), Dr. Narender (PW-11), PSI Indu Bala (PW-12) and HC Rajesh Kumar (PW-13).

6. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein entire incriminating evidence was put to him. However, he denied the same and pleaded false implication in the case. In defence, accused-appellant examined Bushan Singh (DW-1) and Meena Kesari as DW-2.

7. Trial Court, after going through the evidence led by the prosecution, convicted and sentence accused-appellant as stated above. Reference was made to the deposition of Dr. Manjari Gupta, Medical Officer (PW-2), who conducted the medical examination of the victim and opined that possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out. In the MLR, date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 17.11.2009. As per deposition of Dr. Ravi Shankar (PW-3), who has done ossification test of the victim, her age was between 4-5 years with margin error of six months on either side. T