PANNA LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act'). He was sentenced on 09.07.2014 to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that at around 08:05 p.m. on 15.02014, a telephonic message was received at Police Station Woman Sonipat from Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat that the prosecutrix had been brought by her aunt through the Delhi police at Police Station Kharkhoda. She had alleged commission of rape upon her by her father, who was also stated to have been present at Police Station Kharkhoda. After receiving this information, a police party headed by SI/SHO Promila went to Police Station Kharkhoda whereat the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. She had stated that she was born on 25.03.2002 and was studying in Class VI at a private school at Bawana. As her mother had left matrimonial house around 5-6 years back she was residing with her aunt at Bawana. Around one and a half years ago, her father and two elder brothers had shifted to village Firojpur Bangar while her two younger brothers were employed at Bawana. During Navratra holidays in the year 2013, her father had taken her to village Firojpur Bangar and on the next day, he committed wrongful act with her. She had started crying and he had threatened to kill her. She also stated that thereafter he kept on doing wrongful acts with her every second/third day. Later, on 10.02014, she went alone to Bawana to her aunt's house and disclosed the entire episode to her, who brought her to the police station. On the basis of her statement, a case under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered. She was medico legally examined. The medical examination did not reveal the factum of her being ravished. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the Magistrate on 16.12014. She had stated before the Magistrate that her father had committed wrongful acts with her 6-7 times, when she had stayed with him at the village. She also stated that she had gone to her aunt's house on 10.02014, who was informed about the incident. On the basis of the statement and the medico legal report, offences under Section 376 IPC and 6 of the POCSO Act were deleted while offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act were added. The accused was arrested after completion of investigation. The investigation was completed and challan was filed in the Court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial Court by the order dated 15.03.2014 framed charges under Section 354A of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case examined 09 witnesses. PW-1 HC Inder Pal deposed about the sketched site plan Ex. PW-1/A of the place of occurrence as mentioned by the prosecutrix. Pooja Pahal, teacher of the school, where the prosecutrix was studying, was examined as PW-2. She proved certificate Ex.PW2/A issued by the Principal of the school and identified her signatures. She stated that as per entry in school record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 202002. The aunt of the prosecutrix was examined as PW- She had deposed that the prosecutrix used to reside with her at Bawana and during Navratra, she had visited her father and when she came back, she had disclosed to her that her father had committed wrongful acts with her. She had then taken her to police station Bawana and later to Police Station Kharkhoda. She had also stated that the accused was in a drunken condition when he used to sleep with her and touch her inappropriately. Ms. Ankita, Sharma, JMIC, Sonipat has deposed as PW-5, wherein she had stated that the statement of the prosecutrix PW-4/B was recorded by her on receipt of application Ex.PW-5/A and orders passed Ex. PW-5/B. She also deposed about the certificate Ex. PW-5/C appended to the statement. Dr. Richa Malhan was examined as PW-6 and tendered her affidavit PW-6/A that on 16.02.2014, she had conducted medico legal examination of the prosecutrix and report Ex. PW-5/B had been prepared by her. She also stated that there were neither injuries nor any other evidence which would suggest rape. PW-7, SI Krishan Kumar of Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi had stated that the prosecutrix was taken to Kharkhoda police station on 15.02.2014 for conducting further proceedings after she had come to police station Bawana along with her aunt alleging wrongful acts by her father. PW-8 deposed about registering formal FIR Ex.PW8/A on receipt of ruqa and making endorsement Ex.PW8/B in that regard. Inspector Promila, who was the Investigating Officer, deposed as PW-9 and stated that she had conducted the investigation and proved Ex.PW9/A with regard to proceedings conducted by her on ruqa and Ex.PW9/B which was rough site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by her at the instance of the prosecutrix. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case.