RAJU KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Raju Kumar Singh has challenged the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 19.08.2015 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.72/14 arising out of FIR No.166/14 registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 342 IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. By an order dated 25.08.2015, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine Rs.5,000/ - under Section 10 of POCSO Act; Rigorous Imprisonment for two months with fine Rs.500/ - under Section 342 IPC; and, Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine Rs.1,000/ - under Section 12 of POCSO AC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) The incident whereby the child was sexually abused was reported to the police vide Daily Diary (DD) No.87B (Ex.PW -3/A) on 21.02.2014 at around 10.50 p.m. The Investigating Officer after recording the statement of victim's mother (Ex.PW -4/A) lodged First Information Report. The prosecutrix was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The accused was arrested. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of various offences in the court. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication; he did not produce any evidence in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The occurrence took place during day time at around 3.30 p.m. when victim's mother Manju was away at her place of work. When she returned in the evening at around 8.30 p.m., the victim narrated the incident to her. She immediately went to appellant's house but he was not present there. On his arrival at around 10.00 -10.30 p.m., she confronted and slapped him. The incident was reported immediately to the police and DD No.87 -B came into existence. In her statement (Ex.Pw -4/A), Manju gave detailed account as to how and in what manner, her daughter 'X' (changed name) aged around five years was sexually assaulted by the appellant in her absence. The appellant was named in the FIR to be the perpetrator of the crime. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW -2/F) the victim disclosed that the accused had taken her inside his room and had touched her private parts. She further disclosed that the accused had put off her underwear and had touched her private parts with tongue. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW -2/B), the complainant Manju also reiterated her version given to the police at first instance and implicated the accused to be the author of the crime.