KAMAL Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 15th December, 2016 convicting him for offence punishable under Section 4 of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') and in the alternative under Section 376 IPC and offences punishable under Sections 363/366/368/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 21st December, 2016 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366/368 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant, while placing reliance on the decision reported as AIR 2011 SC 715 Alamelu and Anr. v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, submits that the learned Trial Court erred in returning a finding on the date of birth of the victim on a transfer certificate without the basis on which age was entered in the certificate. As per the prosecution, the victim was 13 years old at the time of incident, however, no witness knew about the exact age of the victim. Victim has exonerated the appellant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 The landlord of the place where she was residing has not been examined. It is nowhere reflected in the testimony of the victim that she was kept in confinement, rather she was moving freely. Further as per the testimony of Dr.Geetanjali (PW-13), there was no sign of sexual assault belying the prosecution version.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order on sentence. Appellant has been rightly convicted on the basis of testimony of the victim. Victim was recovered from the house of the appellant. There was no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellant. No question was put to the prosecutrix regarding her age in her cross-examination, hence her version in the examination in chief has gone unrebutted.