PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 09.05.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 141/13 arising out of FIR No. 344/13 PS Subhash Place whereby the appellant -Pramod Kumar was convicted for committing offences punishable under Ss. 363/341/323 IPC and Sec. 7 POCSO Act punishable under Sec. 8 of POCSO Act. By an order dated 17.05.2014, the appellant was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 3,000/ - under Sec. 363 IPC; Simple Imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs. 500 under Sec. 341/323 IPC each; Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 5,000/ - under Sec. 8 of POCSO Act. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge - sheet was that on 31.07.2013 in between 12.15 to 12.45 pm at G -560, Fourth Floor, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi, the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix 'X'(changed name) aged about 6/7 years from the lawful guardianship of her mother and confined her in his room wrongfully. It is alleged that in the room, the appellant kissed her face and breast, made her to sit on his lap and attempted to remove her panty with sexual intent. The incident was reported to the police on 10.08.2013 and the Investigating Officer after recording statement of victim's mother - Shaheen Bano (Ex.PW -6/A) lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge - sheet was filed against the appellant in the court. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication due to non -payment of loan amount of Rs. 4,000/ - advanced by him to victim's mother. The trial resulted in conviction as mentioned previously. 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. Counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Material infirmities emerging in the statements of prosecution witnesses were ignored without cogent reasons. Ten days' delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained. The victim did not sustain any injury whatsoever on her body. The victim has been tutored to make a statement by her mother and no reliance can be placed on it. 'X' gave statement to the police at the behest of her mother. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuting the contentions, urged that there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the minor victim.