STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SAZAD DEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 16/4/2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (learned Trial Court)vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 354, 506, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short 'IPC') and Ss. 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. (for short, 'POCSO Act') (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 354 and 506 of IPC and Ss. 8, 9, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. It was asserted that Kapil Sharma (PW-20) was posted as Co-ordinator, Childline, Chamba, District Chamba H.P. He came to know two months before the incident regarding the molestation of the girl students in Government Primary School. He and his team member Mamta Kumari visited the school and made enquiries from the students studying in classes third, fourth and fifth. Thirteen (13) students disclosed that the accused had molested the female students and acted indecently with them. They disclosed that the accused did not allow them to study. He used to put them on his lap and touch them inappropriately. He would show porn videos to them and ask them to dance. He also used to kiss them. Mamta Kumari talked to students of the sixth class, and six students disclosed that the accused used to act indecently with them. He would show them obscene videos on his mobile and touch them inappropriately. He would threaten the students to beat them in case the incident was revealed to anyone. The matter was reported to the police. Statement (Ext.PW-20/A)was recorded and sent to the Police Station where F.I.R. (Ext.41/Z) was registered. Inspector Sher Sigh (PW-41) conducted the investigation. He visited the school and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW41/A). He recorded the statements of victims as per their version. He seized the extract from the attendance register of the victims and teachers. He wrote a letter to the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, to issue the birth certificates of the victims. He also wrote a letter to the Principal of Senior Secondary School for providing the admission and withdrawal certificates. Desh Raj (PW-26) and Himati Devi (PW-30) provided the record of admission, school leaving certificates of victims and attendance register of the students and teachers. The victims were produced in the Court of Rajinder Kumar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Chamba, H.P (PW-39) and in the Court of Ekansh Kapil, JMIC, Chamba, H.P. (PW-40), who recorded their statements under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. The appointment and posting order of the accused were taken into possession. Statements of witnesses were audio recorded, and these were transferred to the CD. Inspector Mohinder Singh (PW-37) conducted further investigation. He interrogated and arrested the accused. The birth certificates of the victims were produced by Mukesh Kumar (PW-31) and Rattan Chand (PW-33), which were taken into possession. Dr Aleeza Pal (PW-24) and Dr Suruchi (PW-25) medically examined the victims and found that they had not sustained any injuries. The guardians of the victims refused the internal examination of the victims; therefore, their internal examination was not conducted. The mobile phone was sent to RFSL, NR, Dharamshala. Dr Minakshi Mahajan (PW-36) examined the mobile phone of the accused and issued a report (Ext.PW-36/A) stating that no porn video was found physically present in the mobile phone (Ext.P-1). Statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

(3.) The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 354, 506 and 201 of IPC and Ss. 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.