KAZEEM @ BUNTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant appeal the appellant Kazeem @ Bunty challenges the impugned judgment dated 13th October, 2014 whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') in FIR No. 401/2012 registered at PS Madhu Vihar and the order on sentence dated 21st October, 2014 directing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. The learned Trial Court disbelieved the prosecutrix qua the offence of kidnapping as there was no enticement but since she was a child and not legally entitled to consent for sexual intercourse, the appellant was held guilty of offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and 6 POCSO Act. In view of Section 42 POCSO Act, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act.

(2.) Briefly the prosecution case is that Kishan Kumar, PW-1 went to the police station and lodged the complaint with SI Raj Pal, PW-7 stating that on 26th November, 2012 around 7:00 A.M. his cousin aged 14 years left for Rajkiya Sarvodya Kanya Vidhyalaya but neither did she reach the school nor did she return home. PW-1 suspected that some unknown person has taken her away after enticing her. On the basis of this statement, rukka was prepared and FIR was lodged under Section 363 IPC. On 28th November, 2012, PW-7 SI Raj Pal received information from a secret informer that that the prosecutrix PW-2 was present at Jeevan Garh Colony under PS Kuwarsi Aligarh. PW-7 along with Ct. Satender and Amit, brother of the prosecutrix went to the PS Kuwarsi. On 29th November, 2012, they along with the local police went to Gali No. 1, Jeevan Garh Colony where they found the appellant and the prosecutrix in the kitchen and at that time they both were without clothes. The appellant was arrested. Both were brought to Delhi and were medically examined. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed under Section 363/366/376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix and the witnesses were recorded.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no discussion as to how Section 6 of POCSO Act has been made out. It is also contended that when the testimony of the prosecutrix is disbelieved qua kidnapping, how it can be believed that repeated sexual acts took place. Furthermore, there was no documentary proof with respect to the age of the prosecutrix.