ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Ashok Kumar impugns a judgment dated 30.01.2017 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.8967/2016 arising out of FIR No.136/2014 PS Delhi Cantt. by which he was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short 'POCSO Act'). By an order dated 31.01.2017, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine Rs. 50,000/- each under both the offences.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 28.02.2014 at around 04.30 p.m. in Jhuggi No.T-61, East Mehram Nagar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, the appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around 4 years. Incident was reported to the police and DD No.32A (Ex.P-4) came into existence at PS Delhi Cantt. at around 08.19 p.m. The investigation was entrusted to SI Kaptan Singh who along with Const. Shiv Ram and lady Const.Renu went to the spot. After recording statement of the victim's father Deenanath (Ex.PW-5/A), FIR was lodged. In the complaint (Ex.PW5/A), Deenanath gave graphic account as to how and in what manner the appellant had sexually assaulted his daughter 'X'. 'X' was taken for medical examination; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. 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 for the commission of the offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. To establish its case, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses in all. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication due to his declining to pay certain amount demanded by victim's mother Usha to discharge the rent. The appellant did not opt to examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted in conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The victim, indisputably, was aged around 4 years at the time of incident. PW-4 (Jairam Singh), Sub-Registrar, Birth and Death Department, brought the summoned record and proved the documents (Ex.PW-4/A &Ex.PW-4/B) depicting date of birth of the victim as 05.05.2010. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant admitted that the age of the victim was around 5 years. Since this date of birth came to be recorded much prior to the happening of the incident, there was hardly any possibility of the victim's parents to manipulate it.