Crl. LP 404/2015

Page 1 of 20

$~6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION No. 404/2015

%

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

………. Petitioner

Through : Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State

Inspr. Parveen Akhtar and SI Upkar Khan,

P.S. Rani Bagh.

versus

MANOJ RAM

.……….Respondent

Through : Mr. Jatin Rajput, Adv. (DHCLSC)

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. S. SISTANI

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

G. S. SISTANI, J.

CRL.L.P.No. 404/2015

1.

By the present criminal leave petition filed under section 378 (3) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State seeks leave to appeal

against the judgment dated 22.09.2014 passed by Ms. Illa Rawat,

Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 79/2013 whereby the

respondent (accused before the trial court) was acquitted of the

charges punishable under Sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal

Code and charges under Sections 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of

the POCSO Act, 2012.

2.

The facts of the case, as noticed by the learned trial court, are as

under :

Crl. LP 404/2015

Page 2 of 20

1, DDA Market, Saraswati Vihar, was received at PS –

Crl. LP 404/2015

Page 3 of 20

for prosecution evidence.”

3.

Upon Committal of the case to the court of Sessions, the respondent

was charged with having committed the offences under Section 363,

366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (l) punishable

under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The respondent pleaded not

guilty to the aforementioned charges and accordingly prosecution was

called upon to lead evidence.

4.

To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined

15 witnesses in all. The respondent was examined under Section 313

of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied all the

incriminating evidence led by the prosecution. He claimed to be

innocent and submitted that he had been falsely implicated in this case

by the mother of the prosecutrix as he had not agreed to marry the

prosecutrix to a person of her mother's choice. He further stated that

he had also told them that he was already married and has a male child

out of his wedlock but on 18.04.2013 the mother of the prosecutrix

again approached him for a marriage proposal for her daughter but he

refused the same on which the mother of the prosecutrix falsely

Crl. LP 404/2015

Page 4 of 20

implicated him in the present case. The respondent however did not

lead any evidence in his defence.

5.

Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State opened her submissions

by contending that the impugned judgment was erroneous in law,

suffered from serious infirmities and the view taken by the learned

Trial Court is contrary to the established principle laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the accused can be convicted on the sole

testimony of the prosecutrix.

6.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Trial Court failed to

appreciate the testimonies of material witnesses PW3 prosecutrix,

PW4 Principal, PW9 mother of the victim, PW10 Doctor, PW14

Assistant Sub Inspector and PW15 Investigating Officer in the right

perspective and wrongly acquitted the respondent.

7.

The learned counsel for the state also submitted that the trial court has

failed to appreciate that there are no major contradictions in the

testimonies of the witnesses warranting acquittal of the respondent and

the minor contradictions, discrepancies, variations and improvements

are bound to occur in detailed narration of facts by a witness.

8.

Counsel further contended that the delay in registering the First

Information Report has been satisfactorily explained and such delay

would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

9.

Per Contra, supporting the impugned judgment, it was submitted by

Mr. Jatin Rajput, counsel for the respondent that while recording the

findings of acquittal in favour of the respondent very sound and

cogent reasons have been assigned by the Trial Judge.

C