HOSHIYAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant -Hoshiyar Singh to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 10.03.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 60/2010 arising out of FIR No. 67/2010 under Sections 376/506 IPC registered at Police Station Bhajanpur, Delhi by which he, victim's father, was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC. By an order dated 15.03.2011, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 7,000/ - under Section 376 IPC and RI for two years with fine Rs. 3,000/ - under Section 506 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case, as projected in the charge -sheet was that on 06.02.2010 at about 11:00 p.m. and thereafter during night till 10.02.2010, at house No. 401, gali No. 20, Bhajanpura, Delhi -53, the appellant sexually assaulted 'X' (assumed name), aged 14 years, her daughter, and criminally intimidated her. 'X' was a student of 9th standard in GGSSS No. 2, B Block, Yamuna Vihar and her class teacher was PW -1 (Smt. Sarita Sharma). 'X' and her two younger siblings used to live with the appellant in the house after their mother had left to stay at her parents' house about one year before the occurrence due to quarrel with the appellant. 'X' did not attend classes from 6th February, 2010 to 10th February, 2010. On 11th February, 2010 when she went to her school, she gathered courage and reported the incident of sexual harassment by her father to her class teacher Smt. Sarita Sharma (PW -1). PW -1 took her to the Principal PW -3 (Dr.Neeraj) and before whom also, she gave the complaint in writing (Ex.PW -3/A) against her father. Intimation was given to the police and maternal uncles of the prosecutrix. The investigation was taken over by W/SI Anuradha (PW -12). She recorded 'X's statement (Ex.PW -9/A) and lodged First Information Report after making endorsement (Ex.PW -12/A). The prosecutrix was medically examined. The accused was arrested and statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded. After the completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the accused in the court. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to substantiate the appellant's guilt. In his 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He did not examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come in appeal.

(3.) ADMITTED position is that 'X', the appellant's daughter lived with him in the house even after her mother had left the matrimonial home. 'X' disclosed that the appellant was in the habit of consuming liquor which was not liked by her mother and that was the bone of contention. Contrary to that, the appellant urged that 'X's mother was having illicit relations with Balbir Gujjar and she used to meet him at the matrimonial home which was disliked by him and that was the reason of their separation. The appellant, however, did not examine any witness to substantiate the allegations. Nothing has emerged if any action, whatsoever, was taken by the appellant against Balbir Gujjar or his wife for the alleged objectionable relations or he lodged any complaint to her brothers or convened any meeting of respectables to expose her. It has come on record that when intimation was conveyed to the maternal uncles of the prosecutrix by the Principal of the school, they immediately travelled to Delhi and were given the custody of the prosecutrix They had no complaint, whatsoever, against the conduct and behaviour of their sister who stayed with them. In the cross -examination, nothing was suggested to them if appellant's wife had stayed any time with Balbir Gujjar at a definite location. Similarly, the appellant did not produce on record any document to show if he was the owner in -possession of any particular immovable property which was being allegedly grabbed by his wife and her brothers. Moreover, PW -9 ('X'), a child witness had no concern with all these matters and was not expected to falsely rope in her own father. The defence deserves outright rejection and cannot be believed.