(1.) Crl.M.A. 8379/2016
(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that on 23rd December, 2012 DD No. 19A was received at 6:38 P.M. stating that there was a quarrel at House No. 224, Gali No. 16. TKD Extension. PW-4, HC Krishan Kumar recorded the statement of PW-3 on the basis of which FIR was registered. PW-3 stated that he worked as a mason and his wife PW-1 worked in a factory. They both were not at home. When he returned at around 6:15 P.M. after work, the prosecutrix PW-2 told him that Yogender who was her 'mausa', had come at their house. Yogender was drunk and he pressed the breasts of the prosecutrix and went away. When PW-3 went to Yogender's room to complain about the incident, he started quarrelling with PW-3 as a result of which PW-3 called the police. Accordingly FIR No. 691/2012 was registered on the complaint of PW-3 under Sections 354/451 IPC at PS Govind Puri. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after recording the prosecution evidence and statement of the petitioner, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as noted above. Aggrieved by the judgment and order on sentence, the Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 20th February, 2016 and upheld the judgment and order on sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that there is contradiction with respect to time when the alleged incident took place. The prosecutrix PW-2 in her cross-examination stated that her mother came around 12:00 in the afternoon and the alleged incident took place before she came. However, as per the rukka forwarded by PW-4, Krishan Kumar for registration of FIR, the time of incident was mentioned as 6:00 P.M. No independent public witness was examined and produced for corroborating the incident. The prosecutrix was also not medically examined. Thus, there was no corroboration of her version even on this count.