ARJUN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Arjun to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 05.06.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.08/14 arising out of FIR No. 526/13 PS Shalimar Bagh whereby he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sec. 10 of POCSO Act (In short 'Act'). By an order 06.06.2015, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs. 5,000.00; default sentence being SI for six months.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 05.12013, at about 05.00 p.m., at House No. 537, Gali No. 5, Ambedkar Nagar, Haiderpur, Delhi, the appellant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around 11 years. The information was conveyed to the PCR at 09.55 p.m. which was reduced into writing (Ex.PW-10/B). DD No. 3A (Ex.PW-4/B) came into existence at PS Shalimar Bagh at 01.40 a.m on 06.12013. The Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-4/A) lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Crimial P.C. statement. The accused was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and relied upon various documents. In 313 Crimial P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication due to previous quarrels. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admitted position is that the appellant lived in a rented accommodation on the top floor (4th floor) of the premises in question owned by PW-1 (Chattar Singh). In his Court statement, PW-1 (Chattar Singh) informed that he had let out the room to the appellant in the year 201 The victim's family lived in the said premises in a room situated at 1st floor. He further informed that after the occurrence, the victim's family has vacated the premises.