RAMAN KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 17.07.2015 of learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.26/2/2013 arising out of FIR No.142/2013 registered at Police Station Dabri by which the appellant Raman Kumar was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Sec. 10 POCSO Act. By an order dated 20.07.2015, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 10,000.00.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 12.03.2013 at around 4.00 p.m. near Goyal Store, D-30, Dwarkapuri, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi, the appellant committed aggravated sexual assault upon the child victim aged 8 years by touching her waist and vagina. The incident was reported to the police and DD No.36A came into existence at 4.45 p.m. The investigation was assigned to SI Beena. The Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged First Information Report. 'X' was taken for medical examination; she recorded her 164 Crimial P.C. statement. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. 'X' has given conflicting and inconsistent statement at the behest of her mother. She is uncertain if the occurrence had taken place on 11.3.2013 or 12.03.2013. It is unbelievable that the appellant would dare to exhibit such an abnormal behaviour in an open place during day-time. Defence version has been overlooked by the Trial Court for no cogent reasons. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of the investigation. Refuting the contentions of the appellant's counsel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that there are no valid reasons to disbelieve the child witness aged around eight years. She has fully supported the prosecution and nothing material could be extracted in her cross-examination to suspect her.