CRL.A. 510/2018

Page 1 of 59

$-

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 11.07.2018

%

Judgment delivered on: 07.08.2018

+

CRL.A. 510/2018

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with Mr.

Rajat Katyal, APP with Insp. Ajay

Kumar, ASI Tuli Ram, PS Badarpur

versus

KHURSHEED

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms.

Mallika

Parmar,

Advocate

DHCLSC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. TEJI

J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1.

The State has preferred the present appeal upon grant of leave to assail

the judgment dated 24.11.2016 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-01, South East District, New Delhi in Case No. 1808/ 16, Sessions

Case No. 209/ 13, arising out of FIR No. 369/ 2013 registered at Police

Station- Badarpur under Sections 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

CRL.A. 510/2018

Page 2 of 59

2.

By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the

Respondent/ Accused- Khursheed, inter alia, on the premise that the

testimony of the prosecutrix was untrustworthy due to various improvements,

contradictions and inconsistencies in the same. The trial court held that the

accused has cast serious doubts on the case of the prosecution and raised a

possibility of false implication.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2013 at 6:15 PM, W/SI

Krishna vide DD 39A, met with the complainant- Sheela Devi (PW8) and her

daughter aged 8 years- prosecutrix (PW1), at PS Badarpur. The complainant

stated that she lived with her 2 daughters and 3 sons in a rented

accommodation at H. No. 316, Ajju Colony, Badarpur, New Delhi. On the

said day, when the complainant returned home from her job around 3:00 PM,

her daughter- prosecutrix, who was a student of 4^th class in a government

school was missing from their house. She started searching for her daughter

and upon suspicion, she went to the nearby room of Khursheed and pushed

open the door of his room. She found that the accused Khursheed had put the

prosecutrix on the floor and had removed her lower clothes. She added that

Khursheed had also removed his own pant and was lying over the prosecutrix.

The complainant pushed him away, upon which he ran away from the spot

after wearing his pant. She further stated that she was informed by the

prosecutrix herself that the accused- Khursheed had taken her to his room on

the pretext of giving her a toffee, but instead, committed rape upon her and

when she started raising noise, the accused had put his hand on her mouth.

4.

On the statement of the complainant, the case was registered and

investigated. The prosecutrix and the accused were got medically examined.

CRL.A. 510/2018

Page 3 of 59

Samples were collected by the doctor during examination of accused and the

victim, which were also seized. The accused was arrested and produced before

the Court. The statement of the victim was also got recorded before the

learned Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. Upon completion of

investigation, the charge- sheet for the offences punishable under section 376

IPC and Sections 4 of the POCSO Act was filed before the Additional

Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi. The court framed charge against the

accused under section 376 IPC and section 6 POCSO Act to which the

accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5.

To prove the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all,

including PW1- victim/ prosecutrix; PW2 Dr. Piyush Sharma- the doctor who

examined the accused; PW4 Dr. Monica Gupta- the doctor who examined the

victim; PW8 complainant- mother of the prosecutrix, and; PW11 W/SI

Krishna- IO.

6.

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C

and the evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove the charge

was put to the accused. The accused denied all evidences put to him while

recording his statement under s. 313 Cr.P.