SANJEET Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sanjeet challenges the impugned judgment dated 3rd Nov., 2014 convicting him for offences punishable under Sec. 354A/509 IPC and Sec. 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short 'POCSO Act') and the order on sentence dated 5th Nov., 2014 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 10 of POCSO Act. No separate sentence was awarded for offences punishable under Sections 354A/509 IPC.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of identification is tenuous and rendered facile by the attending circumstances. The prosecutrix categorically deposed that the lights in the train were switched off, and only night bulbs were lit at the relevant time. Furthermore, even as per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix was sleeping when the appellant allegedly touched her. The appellant was previously unknown to her and she had not even seen him earlier. It is highly improbable that the prosecutrix would satisfactorily be able to identify an unknown person in dim light and that too when she was abruptly awakened from her sleep. Thus, the possibility of mistaken identification cannot be ruled out. There are material contradictions on the vital aspect as to when and from where the appellant was apprehended. The father of the prosecutrix in his deposition stated that they found the appellant hiding himself in the place where blankets were stored. He further deposed that he did not apprehend the appellant while he was running away. Thus, the opportunity of identification being scanty, it was apparent that the appellant was apprehended on mere suspicion and speculation sans concrete proof. While placing reliance on the decision reported as 2004 (2) Crimes 101, Lalla alias Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P., it is submitted that merely because there is no previous enmity for false implication cannot be a reason for the Court to place implicit reliance on evidence which is unsatisfactory.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence suffer from no illegality.