Delhi District Court
State vs . Jaiveer @ Sagu on 31 January, 2014
State Vs. Jaiveer @ Sagu
FIR NO: 13/13
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :--
SC No. : 70/02/13
FIR No. : 13/13
Police : Najafgarh
Station
Under : u/s 8 of The Protection
Section of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 and
u/s 506 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
State
Versus
Jaiveer @ Sagu
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o H.No. D/189
28 Foota Road
Prem Nagar, Najafgarh
New Delhi. ... Accused
Fresh charge : 07.09.2013
sheet received
by assignment
on
Reserved for : 18.01.2014
judgment on
FIR NO: 13/13 1/9
State Vs. Jaiveer @ Sagu
FIR NO: 13/13
Judgment : 31.01.2014
announced on
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 17.01.2013 at about 6.15 p.m., child victim, who is aged about 14 years had left her house for the purpose of getting her SIM Card recharged from Sagu General Store i.e.shop of accused at 28 Foota Road. When child victim reached the shop, she asked accused to recharge her Aircel phone for Rs.38/-. Thereafter, accused by holding left hand of child victim pulled the child victim inside his shop and pressed her breast with his both hands and told her that he likes her. Accused also threatened the child victim not to disclose about the said act to anybody, otherwise, she would be killed. Thereafter, child victim became frightened and screamed. On hearing the same, mother of child victim and people nearby gathered and had given beatings to accused. Thereafter, mother of child victim called the police and got the present case registered.
2. Based upon the material collected during investigation, accused was charge sheeted for the offence 354/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and u/s 7/8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 FIR NO: 13/13 2/9 State Vs. Jaiveer @ Sagu FIR NO: 13/13 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act).
3. However, after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record, accused was only charged for the offence u/s 506 IPC and u/s 8 of POCSO Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. Prosecution has examined in all 2 witnesses.
5. PW1/Child victim has deposed that on 17.01.2013 at about 6.00-6.15p.m, she went to the shop of Sagu Uncle i.e.accused, which is situated near her house for getting recharged her mobile phone SIM card, where two boys were already standing in front of the counter. When she asked Sagu uncle i.e.accused to recharge her SIM card, in the meanwhile three more boys also reached there. An altercation took place amongst those boys. There was no electricity at that time in the shop. One of those boys caught hold her right hand and she got released herself and thereafter, she went to her house and apprised the entire facts to her mother. Child victim also proved her statement given to the Ld.Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/A wherein she has deposed that an altercation was going on between 5 boys, one of them had held her hand and due to darkness, she was unable to identify the said boy.
FIR NO: 13/13 3/9State Vs. Jaiveer @ Sagu FIR NO: 13/13
6. Since child victim was not deposing true facts, Ld.Addl.PP was allowed to cross examine her.
7. In her cross examination by Ld.Addl.PP, child victim deposed that the police officials had obtained her signature on some blank papers. She denied that police official made inquiries from her or her statement was recorded. She further denied that she had stated to police official in her statement that on 17.01.2013 at about 6.15p.m, when she went to the shop of Sagu uncle i.e.accused to recharge her mobile phone SIM card, Sagu uncle i.e.accused dragged her inside the shop and caught hold her left hand or that he pressed her breast or that he spoke her that he likes her very much and he loves her or that he extended threat stating that if she would disclose about this act to anyone, he would kill her or that when she raised alarm some public persons gathered there or that they had given beating to Sagu Uncle i.e.accused.
8. In her cross examination by accused, child victim deposed that she has no complaint against Sagu uncle i.e.accused.
9. PW2 Mother of child victim has corroborated the version given by child victim regarding her hand being caught hold of by some boys in the shop of accused.
FIR NO: 13/13 4/9State Vs. Jaiveer @ Sagu FIR NO: 13/13
10.In her cross examination by ld.Addl.PP for state, PW2 denied that she had stated to police official in her statement that the shopkeeper/accused had committed sexual assault upon her daughter or that on raising alarm by her daughter, some public persons gathered there and had given beatings to him. She further denied that she is deposing falsely in order to save the accused.
11.In the cross examination by counsel for accused, PW2 admitted that he did not tell the police that accused has misbehaved with the child victim and also admitted that no such incident of misbehavior had taken place.
12.Since material witnesses PW1 and PW2 were not supporting the prosecution case, examination of remaining witnesses, who were formal in nature was dispensed with as even if their statements were taken to be true then also their testimony would not have helped the prosecution in proving its case. Accordingly, prosecution evidence was closed. In the light of there being no incriminating evidence against the accused, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
13.I have heard Ld.Addl.PP for state and counsel for accused FIR NO: 13/13 5/9 State Vs. Jaiveer @ Sagu FIR NO: 13/13 Sh.Lal Singh Thakur and have perused the material available on record.
14.In the present case, accused has been charged for offence u/s 8 of POCSO Act for sexually assaulting the child victim aged 14 years by pressing her breast when she has gone to his shop to get her mobile phone SIM card recharge and for offence u/s 506 IPC for having criminally intimidated the child victim on the said date to kill her if she would disclose the aforementioned facts to anyone.
15.The onus was upon the prosecution to prove the said charges.
16.The prosecution has examined the child victim and his mother in this case. As per deposition of child victim before this court, she had gone to the shop of accused on 17.01.2013 at about 6.00 -6.15 p.m.to recharge her mobile phone SIM card. There was no electricity at that time in the shop and some altercation had taken place between five boys present in the shop and one of the boys during altercation caught hold of her hand. Thereafter, she went to her house and apprised entire facts to her mother and thereafter one neighbour aunty had taken her to accused's shop where she found PCR van standing there. Thereafter, she was taken to police station where her signatures were obtained on the blank papers.
FIR NO: 13/13 6/9State Vs. Jaiveer @ Sagu FIR NO: 13/13
17.Since child victim was not supporting the prosecution story, as given in the police complaint, she was allowed to be cross examined by Ld.Addl.PP. Despite extensive cross examination by ld.Addl.PP, child victim denied that it was accused, who had dragged her inside the shop and had caught hold of her hand and had pressed her breast or had extended any kind of threat to her.
18.In the cross examination by accused, child victim stated that she had no complaint against present accused. Child victim has also proved her statement given before Ld.Magistrate Ex.PW1/A. In the said statement Ex.PW1/A, she has stated facts which she has deposed in the court that in the altercation between five boys, one of them held her hand. She has further stated before Ld.Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that since she was frightened by the act of boys and since the shop belongs to accused, therefore, she has taken the name of accused.
19.Statement of child victim is duly corroborated by her mother, who had deposed on oath that when child victim came back after recharging her mobile phone SIM card, she had stated that one boy had caught hold of her hand at the shop of accused.
FIR NO: 13/13 7/9State Vs. Jaiveer @ Sagu FIR NO: 13/13
20.Despite cross examination by Ld.Addl.PP for state, the mother of child victim did not support the initial prosecution story that it was accused, who had committed sexual assault upon the child victim.
21.On the contrary, mother of child victim deposed that accused had not done any wrong act with the child victim. Therefore, testimony of PW1 Child victim and PW2 Mother of child victim do not in any way incriminate the present accused. On the contrary, statement of PW1 and PW2 when read in conjunction with the statement of child victim made before Ld.Magistrate Ex.PW1/A, goes to prove that accused had not sexually assaulted the child victim but it was one of the boys at his shop, who had done so and who could not be recognized by child victim due to there being darkness on account of failure of electricity.
22.In the light of deposition of above mentioned two witnesses, there is no evidence on record to show that accused had committed sexual assault by touching the breast of child victim on 17.01.2013 at his shop and thereafter, had criminally intimidated to kill her. Hence, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence u/s 8 of POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 8 of POCSO Act and u/s 506 IPC. Personal bond/surety bond, if FIR NO: 13/13 8/9 State Vs. Jaiveer @ Sagu FIR NO: 13/13 any of accused are discharged.
23.Put up today for for filing of bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 31.01.2014 ASJ-01/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
FIR NO: 13/13 9/9