CHANDRIKA PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -Chandrika Prasad is aggrieved by a judgment dated 23.01.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge -01, Central/THC, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 67/2013 arising out of FIR No. 30/13 registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar by which he was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 354 IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act. By an order dated 27.01.2014, he was awarded RI for five years with fine Rs. 2,000/ - under Section 10 of POCSO Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge - sheet was that on 09.02.2013 and before that, in premises No. 16/1069 E Block, Khalsa Nagar, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi, 'X' (assumed name), aged 10 years, was sexually assaulted by the appellant and he outraged her modesty. The incident was reported to the police and daily dairy (DD) No. 27 -A (Ex.PW -4/C) was recorded at 9.28 p.m. at Police Station Prasad Nagar. The investigation was assigned to SI Amit Sharma who with Const.Mahavir Prasad went to the spot. After recording statement of the victim's father (Ex.PW -2/A), he lodged First Information Report. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C; she was medically examined. The accused was arrested. Statement of witnesses conversant with the facts was recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against him in the court. The prosecution examined five witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, denying his complicity in the crime he pleaded false implication on account of non -payment of the price of Neelam stone given by him to the victim's mother. No evidence in defence was produced. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) APPELLANT 's conviction is primarily based upon the solitary statement of 'X', aged around 10 years. Her version throughout is consistent. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she categorically implicated the appellant for outraging her modesty. In her Court statement as PW -1, 'X' proved the version given to the police and before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate without any variation. She identified the appellant to be the perpetrator of the crime and attributed a specific role to her in the crime. She gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances, the appellant, a security guard' in a godown nearby used to touch her body parts from outside and inside her clothes in the absence of her father who used to leave the shop to take lunch at home. In the cross -examination, she answered the queries put to her and stood to her version narrated in her examination -in -chef. She denied if any Neelam was demanded and given to her mother by the appellant. She volunteered to add that the appellant had given it to her father but was returned next day. There are no sound reasons to suspect the testimony of 'X' who had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused. There was no previous animosity with the accused. Despite lengthy cross -examination, no material inconsistency could be elicited in her cross -examination. It emerged from her statement that in the absence of her uncle who had gone to his native village, 'X' used to visit the shop after return from school to enable his father to go to house to take lunch. The accused who worked as security guard in a godown situated in front of the shop took advantage of the absence of 'X's father and touched her various body parts in the shop. He abused the child for about 15 to 20 days before the incident. On a day when 'X' declined to go to the shop and on inquiry for her reluctance to go, she revealed the incident.