LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-281

RAKESH Vs. STATE

Decided On September 17, 2018
RAKESH Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant faced prosecution in Sessions case no.70/14 arising out of first information report (FIR) no.76/14 of police station Gandhi Nagar, involving offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, "POCSO Act"). By order on sentence dated 18.09.2017, after conviction by judgment dated 13.09.2017, punishment was awarded in the form of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 376(2) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 506 Part-II IPC, no separate sentence having been awarded under Section 6 of POCSO Act. By the said order, directions were also given for compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh to be paid to the victim.

(2.) By the appeal at hand, the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence have been assailed. The learned counsel appointed by Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee for the appellant and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have been heard. The trial court record which was requisitioned has been perused.

(3.) The prime grievance raised on behalf of the appellant by the counsel representing him is that he was deprived of effective legal aid and assistance at the trial which, in the submission of the counsel, has vitiated the process, particularly in view of the fact that there was virtually no contest or endeavour made to dig out the truth or test the veracity of the case of the prosecution after the charge had been amended. The counsel also pointed out that there was confusion in the evidence of the prosecution on the issue of chain of custody of the biological samples (of the appellant and the prosecutrix). While conceding to the prevailing confusion in the evidence, which was recorded during the trial on the above score, the Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is a need to examine atleast one more witness for prosecution to bring clarity.