MOHD. RAJU Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgement of conviction dtd. 29/1/2020 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sec. 6 read with 5(j) of POCSO Act and order on sentence dtd. 4/2/2020 passed by the ASJ (POCSO Act), South East, Saket Courts in SC No. 1811/2016.

(2.) The prosecution case, in a nutshell was that on 13/5/2014, information was received in P.S. Govind Puri that the prosecutrix, who was minor and pregnant had been admitted in ESI hospital by her parents vide MLC number 456/2014 which was recorded vide DD no. 11-A and the same was entrusted to SI Jitender and MLC of the prosecutrix was handed over to him. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in the hospital. She stated that the appellant was her fufa (Uncle) who lived nearby and his meals were prepared at her house and she used to deliver them sometimes, along with her sister. About 2-2 1/2 months prior, the appellant called her and her sister for cleaning the utensils at his house. When they reached his house in the evening, after they washed the utensils, the appellant sent prosecutrix's sister to buy cigarettes for him and then he committed rape upon the prosecutrix. He also threatened not to tell about the incident to anyone. However, after some time the prosecutrix's menstruation stopped and she became pregnant, whereafter she disclosed the incident to her parents.

(3.) Vide order dtd. 9/10/2015, charges were framed under Sec. 6 read with 5(j) of POCSO Act, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, in total, fourteen prosecution witnesses were examined. The prosecutrix 'Y' was examined as PW1, her sister 'T' who had accompanied her as PW2 and the mother of prosecutrix was examined as PW3. Mr. Jarnail Singh, the landlord of the appellant was examined as PW9. The IO SI Kala Joshi was examined as PW14. The rest of the witnesses were formal witnesses who deposed about various aspects of the investigation. In defence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under sec. 313 CrPC, wherein he denied the prosecution's case, and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present matter.