NEERAJ BHATT Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment dtd. 5/12/2019 convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Ss. 363 IPC, 376(2) IPC and 6 of the POCSO Act as also the order on sentence dtd. 19/12/2019 whereby the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for offence punishable under Sec. 376(2) IPC as also rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for offence punishable under Sec. 363 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 on both the counts, in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 days.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has not proved the age of the prosecutrix as no school record or original birth certificate was placed on record. There is a discrepancy in the digital copy placed on record as the same does not match with number in the charge sheet. The prosecutrix made a request to the appellant on the Facebook and became friendly. Since the appellant failed to fulfil the demand for a sum of Rs.6,000.00 made by the mother of the prosecutrix, the FIR in question was lodged. The appellant got married to the prosecutrix with the consent of her mother because he genuinely believed that she was above 18 years of age as was declared by her. The call detail records showing that the prosecutrix was in touch with her mother through phone calls had not been placed on record which could show that the mother of the prosecutrix had consented to the marriage of the prosecutrix with the appellant. The mother of the prosecutrix in the FIR stated that the prosecutrix is 14 years old, however, in the cross examination, the prosecutrix stated that her age was 18 years. Even in the Facebook account, the age of the victim was mentioned as 18 years which fact has not been investigated by the police and the Facebook account now stands deleted. Allegations of the prosecutrix that forcible rape was committed is not fortified by her MLC. There being no intention to commit offence as the prosecutrix represented herself to be a major, the appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(3.) Learned APP for the State submits that even as per the case of the appellant, he only put vermilion on the head of the prosecutrix and there was no legal marriage. There is no discrepancy in the digital copy of the certificate showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix and the allegations against the appellant have been duly proved by evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother.