SITAB SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sitab Singh S/o Chander Singh convicted vide judgment dated 6.5.2017 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Patiala House Courts, under Sec. 11(ii) of the Prevention of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 punishable under Sec. 12 thereof and sentenced vide order on sentence dated 10.7.2017 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month with the benefit of Sec. 428 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks the setting aside of the said conviction and sentence imposed submitting that he has been convicted erroneously on the basis of presumptions and assumptions without the charge of allegations levelled against him having been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant has also claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has submitted that the prosecution version levelled against him was not probable and that the testimony of the prosecutrix PW-4 was a wholly tutored testimony and that there had been non-compliance of the provisions of Sec. 24 (2) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued to the State and vide order dated 17.10.2017 qua Criminal M. B. 1812/2017 vide which it was held that there was no case for suspension of sentence made out during the pendency of the present appeal and the Trial Court Record was requisitioned which has been received and perused.

(3.) The prosecution version set forth through the charge sheet filed under Sec. 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Trial Court is to the effect that SI Ram Pratap who was on emergency duty on 6.3.2015 at Police Station Delhi Cantt., on receipt of DD No. 61 A at 11:05 p.m. i.e. EX.PW-8/D which was to the effect that as per the information received at Servant Quarter No.165, Old Pratap Chowk, a boy had committed eve teasing with a lady as informed by the Lady Constable Anu 8552 of the PCR, and thus SI Ram Pratap along with Lady Constable Mukesh 2741 S-W reached the spot at quarter No. 165, Servant Quarters, Gopinath Bazar, where the prosecutrix Ms. 'X' in the presence of her mother Manju and Lady Constable Mukesh, gave a statement to the effect that her father's name was Virender Singh, that she was aged 9 years with her date of birth being 10.9.2005 and that she herself studied in the Standard IV at the Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Sadar Bazar and that on that day at about 9:30 p.m. she was playing in the gallery outside her house and that her parents had gone with her brother to Dwarka and at that time the accused Sitab Singh, i.e., the appellant herein whom the prosecutrix referred to as 'uncle' who used to live in house No. 152 which house is opposite to her house had called out to her and when she looked outside her house, she saw uncle Sitab Singh standing outside his house and that he had opened the zip of his pant and showed her his penis and asked her to come to him and that she should not tell her mother, as a consequence of which she ran back into her house and closed her house from inside and that she informed her father about the same telephonically and thus her parents came home and she told them everything in detail whereafter her father telephoned the police at No.100. She further stated that she had given the statement to the police in the presence of her mother Smt.Manju and she sought legal action.