Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Del) 33782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Amit Sharma, JJ
RAM PREET – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL.A. 475/2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Manika Tripathy, Mr. Barun Dey, Mr. Rony John
For the Respondents: Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr. Dhruv Chaudhry, Ms. Eshita Pallavi, Mr. Adeeb Ahmad, Mr. Ajay Verma, Ms. Sudha Reddy, Ms. Bhoomika Uppal, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri
Conviction under POCSO for penetrative assault vacated as evidence only substantiated contact without penetration, leading to a modified charge under lesser offenses.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374(2), 383 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Appeal against conviction for rape of minor - Conviction by Trial Court under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO set aside due to lack of evidence for penetrative assault - Evidence showed mere contact and not penetration - Conviction modified to Section 354B IPC and Sections 7/8 POCSO, allowing appeal in part. (Paras 14 and 36)
(B) Sexual assault standards - Evidence of minor and mother noted, inconsistencies considered - Court emphasized that even small inconsistencies should not undermine the victim's credibility - MLC findings supported the minor's claims yet showed limitations of evidence for higher charges. (Paras 26-29)
Facts of the case:
The appeal concerns the conviction of the Appellant for sexually assaulting a minor, referenced through mother’s complaint regarding inappropriate contact leading to the hospitalization of the Survivor. The medical examination revealed redness but no penetrating injuries. (Paras 4-9)
Findings of Court:
The original conviction was undermined as the crucial elements for charges under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act were not satisfied; instead, contact offense confirmed. Conviction was thus modified. (Para 36)
Issues: The primary issue revolved around the interpretations of the evidence in determining the nature and extent of contact vis-à-vis the charged offenses under IPC and POCSO Act. The Court emphasized that penetrative actions are significantly higher thresholds in differentiating charges. (Para 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that charges for penetration require specific medical corroboration, which was absent, thereby diluting the original charges while establishing evidence of lesser offenses involving physical contact without penetration as per POCSO’s definition. (Paras 29 and 30)
Result: Appeal partly allowed; convictions modified to lesser charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the alleged crime. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's determination of evidence sufficiency. (Para 26 , 28) |
| 4. court's reasoning on offense definitions. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 5. final ruling and conviction adjustment. (Para 36) |
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
Background:
2. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant-Ram Preet under Section 374 (2) read with Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, ‘Cr.PC.’) assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 2nd March, 2020 and 6th March, 2020 respectively, passed by Sh. Mohd. Farrukh, ASJ-05 Special Judge (POCSO Act) Central District, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. The Appellant has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 812/2017 arising out of FIR No. 113/2017 registered at P.S. Gulabi Bagh under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, the ‘POCSO’ Act)
3. Vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act along with fine of Rs.10,000/. In default of the fine, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.
Brief Facts:
4. A complaint was filed on 19th October, 2017 (hereinafter, the ‘complaint’) by the mother of the Survivor that at about 11:00 am on the same day, her daughter informed her that the Accused who resided on the upper floor of the house had removed her undergarments and had inserted his finger in the private parts of her daughter.
5. The daughter of the complainant is a minor who was 3 years of age when the incident took place. Her date of birth on record is 29th September, 2014.
6. It is further stated in the complaint, that upon receiving the information from her daughter on 19th October, 2017 at about 11:00 am, the Complainant went to the Accused and scolded him. Thereafter, she put the survivor to sleep. However, when the Survivor woke up, she complained of a burning sensation in her private parts. The mother then dialled the number 100 and the concerned police officials took the Survivor to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi for a medical examination.
7. On the statement made by the mother of the survivor, an FIR dated 19th October, 2017 was registered at the Police Station Gulabi Bagh, Delhi under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(b)/4 of the POCSO Act. In the charge-sheet however, Section 6 of the POCSO Act was also added and the charge was framed vide order dated 6th December 2017, as under:
“I, Kaveri Baweja, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi do hereby charge you accused Rampreet S/o Bechu Ram as under:
That on 19.10.2017 at about 11 AM at H. No. 10642, Gali No. 6, Pratap Nagar, Delhi, you inserted your finger into private part of minor prosecutrix 'D' [name of the victim withheld in order to protect her identity and told to the accused verbally] and committed rape upon the above named minor Prosecutrix and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you inserted your finger into private part of above named minor prosecutrix aged below 05 years and thus committed penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the said charge.”
8. The date of birth of the Survivor was recorded by the authorities as 29th September, 2014. The birth certificate was exhibited as Ex.PW4/8. The Accused pleaded not guilty and the trial of the case commenced. The prosecution examined 8 w
