RAIS Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present petition, impugning a judgment dated 28.01.2016 (hereafter the 'impugned judgment') and order on sentence dated 30.01.2016 passed by the ASJ, North-West District, Rohini District Court, New Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter the 'POCSO Act') and was awarded ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of the fine, he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(2.) It is the prosecution's case the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim who was, at the material time, less than eight years old. The appellant, who is a vendor of balloons, had enticed the child victim by giving her Rs. 20/- and one balloon and thereafter, lured her into bushes and had sexually assaulted her. The victim had raised an alarm. One Shri Rajesh (who had deposed as PW8) was passing by. He had rescued the victim. The appellant had tried to run away, but was apprehended.

(3.) The appellant contends that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the evidence brought on record is insufficient to convict the appellant. The appellant contends that the testimony of PW8 - who according to the prosecution had allegedly caught hold of the appellant while committing the offence - did not establish the case of the prosecution. The appellant contends that PW8 could neither recount the date of the alleged incident and nor could he identify the appellant. Further, the appellant contends that PW-7's testimony is hearsay based on what he heard from PW-8 and thus, could not have been relied upon. The appellant also contends that the testimony of PW-11 is hearsay as well, because PW-11 recounted whatever he had heard from public persons and thus, cannot be relied upon.