Crl.A. 751/2014

Page 1 of 13

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.A. 751/2014

CHANDER SINGH

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra,

Adv.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the

State with SI Uma Dutt, PS

Mangol Puri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1.

By the instant appeal, the appellant Chander Singh challenges the

impugned judgment dated 17^th December, 2013 whereby he has been

convicted for the offence defined under Section 9(k), punishable under

Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002

(in short the POCSO Act) in FIR No.80/2013 registered at PS Mangol Puri

and the order on sentence dated 18^th December, 2013 directing him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and fine of `5,000/-

in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three

months.

2.

The prosecution case in brief is that on February 09, 2013 at about

7.28 PM, PW12 HC Laxman Singh was handed-over DD No.18, Ex.PW-

12/A informing that a boy was kidnapping a girl and the said boy was

apprehended by the caller at K Block complex. On reaching the spot, he

Crl.A. 751/2014

Page 2 of 13

found Chander Singh apprehended by public. Raj Kumar who made the call

to the PCR was found to be the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, who was a

minor, deaf and dumb girl aged 12 years. Statement of the mother of the

prosecutrix was recorded wherein she stated that at around 7.00 PM her

daughter aged 12 years who was deaf and dumb had gone to throw garbage

in the dustbin. She returned back in a perplexed and perturbed condition.

When she and her brother asked her, she explained by sign language that

near the dustbin one man pressed her mouth, her breast and the lower

abdomen. The prosecutrix ran towards her house after freeing herself from

his clutches. She and her brother along with the prosecutrix went to the

dustbin where her daughter pointed out towards a boy whose name was

revealed as Chander Singh, S/o of Sukhbir Singh who was apprehended by

her brother. Her brother made the PCR call. Chander Singh was

apprehended at the spot and both the prosecutrix and Chander Singh were

got medically examined.

3.

Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with

the help of interpreter Ms.Rita Kanojia PW-3 before the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate. Learned Magistrate questioned her generally.

When she was able to the tell the name of her parents, sister and replied that

she had no brother, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

wherein she stated “He had mustache. He gagged my mouth with his hand.

done it twice earlier. Do not want to say anything more”.

4.

Though MLC of the prosecutrix was conducted obviously there would

Crl.A. 751/2014

Page 3 of 13

be no such injury which could be reflected in the MLC. After investigation

was completed and charge-sheet was filed, Chander Singh was charged for

offence defined under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of POCSO

Act, besides Section 354-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty.

5.

During the course of trial, besides the prosecutrix who was examined

as PW-2, her father, mother and maternal uncle were examined as PW-1,

PW-4 and PW-5 respectively. The interpreter Ms.Rita Kanojia was

examined as PW-3 and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as PW-8. To

prove the age of the prosecutrix the investigating officer produced the

certificate from the school Ex.PW-14/D which noted her date of birth as

February 17, 2000. Thus the prosecutrix was 8 days less than 13 years on

the date of incident.

6.

This Court need not note the testimony of any other witness except

the prosecutrix PW-2 for the reason no other person witnessed the incident

and her mother PW-4 whose evidence would be relevant and admissible

under Section 6 and 8 of the Evidence A