Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005010

CRL. REV.P. 414/2018 Page 1 of 6

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on:15.11.2022

Pronounced on:22.11.2022

+

CRL.REV.P. 414/2018

STATE (GNCTD)

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State

with

SI

Sita

Ram,

P.S.

Karawal Nagar

versus

MD. JABBAR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.

Somdutt

Kaushik,

Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read

with Section 401(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has

been filed against the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO), North

East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the learned Trial

Court discharged the accused for the offences punishable under

Section 06 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (“POCSO Act”) in case FIR no. 58/2017 registered at Police

Station Karawal Nagar, New Delhi for offences punishable under

Sections 376/506 IPC & Section 6 POCSO Act.

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:22.11.2022

18:40:50

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005010

CRL. REV.P. 414/2018 Page 2 of 6

2.

The brief facts of the present case are that the victim, a minor

girl, aged about 14 years, lodged a complaint with the police alleging

that for past four months, she had been residing with her grandmother

and paternal uncle‟s son namely Sonu in a rented house. Her parents

had died in her childhood and she stays home. It is alleged that one

Jabbar uncle (accused), aged about 50 years was residing near her

house and had been teasing her since December 2016. It is further

alleged that one day, Jabbar gave her Rs. 50/- and asked her to eat

cheej and took her to third pulia in an isolated place and gagged her

mouth with a piece of cloth and did wrong acts with her. Thereafter,

accused threatened her that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he

will kill her and due to fear, she did not tell anyone about the

incident. She further alleged that on 30.01.2017, at around 6.00pm,

accused met on her way to Sombazar, threatened her and took her to

a secluded place where he again raped her and upon raising alarm, he

threatened to kill her brother and grandmother. She further alleged

that on 13.02.2017, in the afternoon accused again caught hold of her

hand and tried to take her with him but she resisted and ran away and

came home. She narrated the entire incident to her grandmother, who

informed her cousin Sonu. Thereafter, cousin of victim informed the

police.

3.

Subsequently, on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix,

MLC and counseling report, FIR No.58/2017 under section 376/506

IRC and 6 of POCSO Act was registered and investigation was

initiated. The statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded

on 14.02.2017 and she was taken for Ossification test at GTB

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:22.11.2022

18:40:50

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005010

CRL. REV.P. 414/2018 Page 3 of 6

Hospital to ascertain proof of her age. On 27.02.2017, accused

surrendered in Court and thereafter, accused was medically examined

and statement of the accused was recorded. After perusing documents

on record and evidence collected, Ld. Sessions Court discharged

accused under section 6 of POCSO Act and framed charges only

under section 376/ 506 IPC against the accused.

4.

Learned APP for the State has argued that the age of the victim

was determined on the basis of ossification test which opined that the

age of the victim is between 16 to 18 years. He, therefore, states that

benefit which was given by the concerned court for assessment of age

of the prosecutrix of two years margin of error on the higher side was

erroneous. It is therefore, stated that the discharge u