BADRUDDIN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 29.05.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.40/14 arising out of FIR No.11/14 PS Naraina by which the appellant was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sec. 6 POCSO Act and Sections 377/506 IPC. By an order dated 30.05.2015, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs.10,000.00 under Sec. 6 POCSO Act and RI for two years with fine Rs.5,000.00 under Sec. 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge sheet was that on 101.2014 at about 09.00 p.m. at WZ-893, Naraina Village, the appellant committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the victim 'X' (Assumed name) aged around 9 years and criminally intimidated him. He also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the child 'X'. The police machinery came into motion on getting information about the occurrence on 13.01.2014 vide DD No.33A (Ex.PW-5/D) recorded at 08.10 P.M. at PS Naraina. The investigation was assigned to SI Sandeep Kumar who along with Const.Sunil Kumar went to the spot. After recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. 'X' was medically examined; he recorded his statement under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. The appellant was arrested and medically examined. 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. To prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. In 313 Crimial P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication due to a quarrel for non-return of Rs.10,000.00 taken by the victim's father. He examined DW-1 (Mohd.Fakruddin) in defence. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admitted position is that the appellant lived in the neighbourhood of the victim and was acquainted with him prior to the incident. The occurrence took place on 12.01.2014 at about 09.00 P.M. at appellant's rented accommodation. The victim did not inform his family members soon after the crime. On 101.2014, when he declined to go to take tuitions due to pain in anus, victim's mother was apprised of the incident. The police was promptly informed. In the information conveyed vide DD No.33A (Ex.PW-5/D), it was mentioned that a tenant residing in the neighbourhood had committed 'wrong act'. In the statement (Ex.PW- 1/A), the victim aged around 9 years gave vivid account of the occurrence and disclosed as to how and in what manner, the appellant had committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with him. He also disclosed that he was criminally intimidated and threatened to be killed if he informed the incident to anybody. Since he was feeling pain in his anus, due to fear, he did not inform anyone and went to sleep at his house. On 101.2014 when he was unable to bear the pain in the anus, he informed his parents. Apparently, the appellant was named in the FIR to be the author of the crime. Specific and definite role was attributed to him. The delay in lodging the FIR has been duly explained.