STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Vs. RAMAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was tried for offences punishable under Sections 366/342 Penal Code and Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') and acquitted vide impugned judgment dated 21st Nov., 2014. Hence the present appeal by the State after leave to appeal was granted.

(2.) In her deposition before the Court the child victim PW-1 stated:

(3.) FIR No. 47/2013 under Sec. 363 Penal Code was lodged at PS Dabri, Delhi on the complaint of the father when the child victim was found missing since 6.30 PM on 23rd Jan., 201 Despite search being made the child victim was not traceable. On 25th Feb., 2013 at 2.30 PM the complainant received a call from his wife stating that the child victim had returned home, where after she was taken to police station and for medical examination. No statement of the prosecutrix/child victim was recorded immediately. The respondent was arrested in another case where he stated to have allegedly made disclosure statement in respect of the present case. Thus he was produced before the Court and an application was made for test identification parade which the respondent refused stating that he had been taken at various places and shown to number of persons. It is only after the arrest of the respondent and his alleged disclosure statement that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. and 164 Crimial P.C. for the first time though she returned home within two days of her missing from her house. Though the father says that the prosecutrix returned on 25th Feb., 2013 however, as per the prosecutrix she came back on 26th Jan., 2013 at 2.00 PM on her own and nobody met her on the way. She knew the location of her house and though she met her family members, she did not disclose them anything but disclosed the fact only for the first time to the police uncle. As noted above the statement of the victim was recorded after nearly two months of the incident after the respondent was arrested in the other case. In her cross-examination the victim admitted that whatever she deposed was as told to her by the police uncle. In her cross-examination she further stated that she was at her house with her parents prior to 25th Jan., 2013 and nothing had happened to her.