RAJESH Vs. STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Rajesh to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 27.01.2016 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.53/2/14 whereby the judgment dated 27.06.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR 482/98 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar was set aside. The petitioner was held guilty for committing offence under Section 377 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 2,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case, as reflected in the charge-sheet, was that on the night intervening 27/28.07.1998, the accused committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with a boy 'X' (assumed name), aged around 11 years. The information about the incident was conveyed to the police at 6:10 a.m. and Daily Dairy (DD) No. 29 (Ex.PW8/A) came into existence at Police Station Paschim Vihar. The petitioner was specifically named to have outraged the modesty of the child 'X'. The investigation was assigned to Head Constable Bua Lal who with Constable Ved Pal went to the spot. The Investigating Officer after recording statement of victim's father (Ex. PW-3/B) lodged First Information Report. The victim was medically examined. The accused was arrested and taken for medical examination. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 377 IPC. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner pleaded false implication and denied his involvement in the crime. On appreciation of the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by judgment dated 27.06.2014 acquitted the petitioner. The State, thereafter challenged the acquittal in appeal which was allowed by a judgment dated 27.01.2016. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Admitted position is that the victim lived in the petitioner's neighborhood. Apparently, he was minor on the date of occurrence.