STATE Vs. ABUZAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dtd. 17/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (POCSO) South-East District, Saket Courts, acquitting the respondent for offences punishable under Ss. 376/506 IPC and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, "POCSO Act").

(2.) FIR No.263/2013 was registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar under Ss. 376/506 IPC and 6 of POCSO Act wherein the prosecutrix stated that she was the student of 5th standard aged around 16 years. However she did not know how to read and write because she had studied in Urdu. Her mother used to work as a cook in the houses. Around 9 months ago in the marriage of the sister-in-law of her sister, the respondent gave his mobile phone number on a piece of paper. Thereafter she started talking to the respondent. After about one month, she went to the house of her sister where again in a marriage she met the respondent. Thereafter she started working as a cook in a house, during which period in the month of November, the respondent called her in the park. They spoke between 8 PM to 9:30 PM. Despite the prosecutrix asking about the time, respondent did not tell her and when she snatched the phone she found that it was 11:00 PM at night. Since it was late, the respondent stated that she would not be able to go to her house at late night and she should go to the house of the respondent where there were two rooms. The prosecutrix went to the house of the respondent and, at night, the respondent tried to have physical relation. When she stopped, the respondent stated that he wanted to marry her, on which, she asserted that they should first marry and then she will have physical relationship. Thereafter, she slept and when she woke up she found that her Salwar had been taken off and the respondent was lying on her. On her repeatedly weeping, the respondent stated that he will marry her and nothing will happen to her. Thereafter the respondent threatened her that he had made a video and started blackmailing her. After some time she got to know that she was pregnant and when she informed the respondent, the respondent refused to marry the prosecutrix.

(3.) Pursuant to the filing of the charge-sheet, prosecutrix was examined as PW-11 and in her examination-in-chief, she reiterated her version stated in the FIR except that her video was made which was elicited by the learned APP on the cross-examination. Though the prosecutrix was cross-examined by learned counsel for the respondent on two dates, however, she stopped appearing thereafter and thus her cross-examination could not be completed. In the absence of her complete cross-examination, the evidence of the prosecutrix as deposed in the examination-in-chief could not have been considered and thus the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent.