CRL.A. 570/2020 & CRL.A. 206/2022

Page 1 of 27

$~11 & 12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 02.02.2023

Judgment pronounced on: 16.05.2023

+

CRL.A. 570/2020 & CRL.M.A. 3034/2022

RAJU YADAV

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, Adv. (DHCLSC)

with Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Mr. Yaseen Siddiqui, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP

SI Mohit Singh, PS Punjabi Bagh

12 +

CRL.A. 206/2022

LAKHI VISHWAS

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Akhil Dhaka, Adv. for Mr. Rajesh

Mishra, Adv. (DHCLSC)

versus

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP

SI Mohit Singh, PS Punjabi Bagh

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G E M E N T

:

JASMEET SINGH (J)

1.

These are appeals seeking setting aside of the judgement dated 31.01.2020

and order on sentence dated 27.06.2020 passed by the learned Special

Judge (POCSO ACT)/ ASJ-01, (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in case

S.C. No. 55924/2016, FIR No. 224/2013, u/s 376/342/506/120B/109 IPC

and section 4/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Digitally Signed byAMIT

ARORA

Signing Date:16.05.2023

17:38:45

Signature Not Verified

CRL.A. 570/2020 & CRL.A. 206/2022

Page 2 of 27

(hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”), registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh,

Delhi.

2.

The appellants in CRL.A. 570/2020 and CRL.A. 206/2022 are Mr. Raju

Yadav (hereinafter referred to as “appellant No.1”) and Ms. Lakhi

Vishwas (hereinafter referred to as “appellant No.2”) respectively.

3.

Vide judgement dated 31.01.2020, the appellant No.1 was found guilty of

aggravated penetrative sexual assault u/s 6 of POCSO Act and appellant

No.2 for abetting and aiding the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual

assault by appellant No.1 u/s 16 of POCSO Act. Vide order on sentence

dated 27.06.2020, the appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 were sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of

Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, a further period of 1 month

simple imprisonment each.

4.

Brief facts of the case are-

i.

Appellant No.2 is the maternal aunt of the prosecutrix. It is alleged that on

25.05.2013,the appellant No.2 took the prosecutrix (aged about 13 years)

to her place of employment and during that night, when the prosecutrix

was sleeping with appellant No.2 in the room, appellant No.1 (house

guard) entered the room and committed rape upon the prosecutrix while

the appellant No.2 bolted the room from inside. Both the appellants

threatened the prosecutrix of dire consequences if she raised any alarm. It

is further alleged that appellant No.1 repeated the same act upon the

prosecutrix the next day, i.e. on 26.05.2013 and appellant No.2 again

bolted the room from inside while appellant No.1 committed rape upon

the prosecutrix.

ii.

On 27.05.2013, at around 6 am, both the appellants dropped the

prosecutrix at her place of employment at New Rajender Nagar. The

prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her employer Ms. Pushpa Rani

Digitally Signed byAMIT

ARORA

Signing Date:16.05.2023

17:38:45

Signature Not Verified

CRL.A. 570/2020 & CRL.A. 206/2022

Page 3 of 27

(also referred to as Pusha Nani by the prosecutrix) and thereafter,

chargesheet was filed for offences u/s 376/342/506/120B/109 IPC and u/s

10/4/6 of POCSO Act against the appellants.

iii.Vide order dated 07.10.2013, charges for offence u/s 6 of POCSO Act was

framed against appellant No.1 and charges for offence u/s 16 of POCSO

Act was framed against appellant No.2.

5.

The prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses in this regard, being the

prosecutrix, public witnesses, expert witnesses and police officials.

6.

Mr. Madhukar, learned counsel for appellant No.1 submits that the

provisions of POCSO Act cannot be attracted in the present case as the

age of the prosecutrix was not established to be under 18. He submits th