RAM SNEHI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been instituted under Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dtd. 13/9/2022 and the order on sentence dtd. 3/11/2022 passed by the learned ASJ, FTSC (POCSO), North District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, in SC No. 58481/2016 arising out of FIR No. 1306/2014 registered under Ss. 376 IPC and 6 POCSO at P.S. Shahbad Dairy.

(2.) On 15/11/2014, DD No. 18A came to be recorded at P.S. Shahbad Dairy, wherein the caller informed that an offence had been committed against a girl. The statement of the mother of the child victim was recorded to the effect that the victim was a girl child aged 8 years studying in 4th standard. The mother, who was working as a house helper, stated that while she was at work, she received a phone call from a neighbour informing her that the appellant had committed a wrong act with her daughter. When she reached the hospital, her daughter told her that on that day, the lady living above the house of the appellant had asked her to bring a slipper which had fallen down. When she was returning after giving the slipper, the appellant pulled her inside his room and closed the door. Thereafter, the appellant removed his pants and her pyjami, and made her hold his penis. The accused then attempted to insert his urinating part into her urinating part and, when she started crying and screaming, he gagged her mouth. At that moment, the victim's sister arrived, and the appellant left her. The sister raised an alarm, upon which people from the neighbourhood gathered and apprehended the appellant, later handing him over to the police. The FIR was registered, the victim was medically examined, and her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The Trial Court initially framed charges against the appellant under Ss. 6/8 POCSO; however, the same were later amended and charges under Ss. 376/354/342 IPC and Ss. 6/10 POCSO were framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined 16 witnesses in all, the material witnesses being the child victim (PW-1), the mother of the child victim (PW-14), the jaithani of the child victim's mother (PW-3), and the cousin sister of the victim (PW-15). The date of birth of the child victim was proved through a Clerk from the Office of the Sub-Registrar (Birth and Death), who was examined as PW-2. The MLC of the victim was proved through Dr. Nisha Kumari (PW-4) and Dr. Amit Shokeen (PW-6). The other prosecution witnesses deposed as to different aspects of the investigation. The appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence.