SHYAMU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 27.09.2017 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.7154/2016 emanating from FIR No.218/2014 PS Neb Sarai whereby the appellant Shyamu was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 354/354A/354B IPC and Section 10 POCSO Act. By an order dated 14.10.2017, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for six years with fine '10,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 17.03.2014 at around 01.30 p.m. at House No.1265, Gali No.29/6, L1st, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, the appellant outraged the modesty of a minor girl 'X' (assumed name) aged around 4 years and committed rape by touching her vagina by hand and mouth. Information about the incident was conveyed to the police and DD No.33A (Mark 'A-1') came to be recorded at 2.07 p.m. on 17.03.2014 at PS Neb Sarai. The Investigation was assigned to ASI Makkhan Singh who along with Const.Sunita went to the spot. After recording statement (Ex.PW10/A) of victim's mother, the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. The prosecutrix was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The appellant was arrested. The exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of the offences referred above. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all and relied upon several documents. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement the appellant pleaded false implication due to dispute of non-return of loan by the victim's father in which he had stood 'guarantor'. The trial resulted in appellant's conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and committed grave error to base conviction on the sole testimony of the child witness aged around 4 years. The appellant aged around 70 years was not expected to outrage the modesty of the girl who used to play with his grandchildren in his house. Counsel also urged to modify the sentence considering the appellant's age and detention period.