Delhi District Court
Fir No. 106/15 State vs . Satyanaraina @ Siyaprasad Page 1 Of 7 on 2 December, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT,
ASJ01, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case ID No.02403R0165022015
SC No. 81/15
FIR No. 106/15
PS : Naraina
U/sec. 342/377 IPC and Sec.6 POCSO Act
In re :
STATE
Vs.
Satyanarain Mandal @ Siyaprasad
S/o Sh. Sirekhan Mandal
R/o W102/196 Indira Market CB
Naraina, New Delhi.
Date of filing of charge sheet : 24.08.2015
Date of framing of charge : 15.09.2015
Date of judgment : 02.12.2015
J U D G M E N T
1 By this judgment, I will dispose of case of the prosecution based on FIR no. 106/15 PS Naraina u/sec.342/377 IPC and Sec.6 POCSO Act, 2012.
2 The brief facts of the case as per prosecution are that there is a child X (name mentioned in records) aged about 10 years. As per the prosecution accused Satyanarain Mandal @ Siyaprasad allured the victim to his home by offering toffee and FIR No. 106/15 State Vs. Satyanaraina @ Siyaprasad page 1 of 7 2 money, confined him there and he inserted his male organ into the anus of the victim.
Accused was arrested. After filing of the charge sheet, he was summoned for the offences u/sec.342/363/377 IPC read with Sec.6 POCSO Act, 2012.
3 After the proceedings u/sec.207 Cr. P.C., arguments on charge were heard.
4 Prima facie charges u/sec.342/377 IPC read with Sec.6 POCSO Act, 2012. were framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5 To prove its case prosecution examined five witnesses.
6 PW1 Smt. Tanuja Sharma, Teacher of MCD Primary School, HBlock, Naraina proved the credentiality of date of birth of the victim as Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. As per her the date of birth of victim is 10.02.2003.
7 PW2 HC Narender Singh was posted as Duty Officer on the date of incident. He proved DD entry no. 34A as Ex.PW2/A. He received rukka from IO and put his endorsement as Ex.PW2/B. He lodged FIR through computer operator. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW2/C. 8 PW3 Victim X s/o Y (name mentioned in records), was examined by the State but he turned hostile regarding the incidents/previous statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. or u/sec.164 Cr.P.C. In his statement in the court, he had only deposed that the alleged incident was only regarding the fight between accused and him on account of taking water from the tap. He was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State but had not supported the case of the prosecution even in crossexamination by State.
FIR No. 106/15 State Vs. Satyanaraina @ Siyaprasad page 2 of 7 3 9 PW4 Smt. Indal, mother of the victim was examined by the State but she turned hostile regarding the incidents/previous statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. In her statement in the court, she had only deposed that the alleged incident was only regarding the fight between accused and her son on account of taking water from the tap. She was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State but had not supported the case of the prosecution even in crossexamination by State.
10 PW5 IO SI Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 27.02.2015 he was posted at PS Naraina. He received DD entry no. 34A i.e. Ex.PW2/A. He along with Ct. Pawan went to the spot i.e. W102/196, Indira Market Naraina. At the spot victim and his mother met him. He recorded the statement Ex.PW3/B in the presence of his mother. Victim put his thumb impression on the statement in presence of his mother. He attested the statement, made endorsement Ex.PW5/A, prepared rukka and handed over to Ct. Pawan for getting the FIR registered. After some time Ct. Pawan came back with the original rukka and FIR Ex.PW2/C. He prepared site plan Ex.PW5/B. Thereafter he took the child for medical examination and got the MLC Ex.P1 of victim prepared. Doctors handed over to him a sealed pullanda containing rectalswab. The same was taken by him into his possession vide memo Ex.PW5/C. He also obtained the medical report from Dr. Nitin Ex.P2. He deposited the case property with MHC (M). On 03.03.2015 he got the statement of victim recorded u/sec.164 Cr.P.C. from Ld. MM. the same is Ex.P4. On 27.05.2015 accused surrendered in the court and with the permission of the court accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/X. On 12.06.2015 he deposited the exhibits with FSL. FSL gave the acknowledgement with Ex.PW5/D which he handed over to MHC (M). On 15.07.2015 the judicial TIP of accused was conducted. The proceedings of the same is proved as Ex.P5. On 22.07.2015 on his request, accused was produced in DDU Hospital. He was medically FIR No. 106/15 State Vs. Satyanaraina @ Siyaprasad page 3 of 7 4 examined. He obtained his MLC Ex.P3. Doctor also handed over to him a sealed pullanda containing blood sample of accused. He took the same into his possession vide memo Ex.PW5/E. He collected the age proof of victim as Ex.PW1/C from the school. He also got into possession the electricity bill pertaining to accused which is proved as Ex.P8.
11 Following documents were admitted by accused/counsel for accused
u/sec.294 Cr. P.C. and were read as evidence:
Serial Description of Number of Admitted/denied Remarks by Exhibit/s
No. document/s pages court, if any
1 MLC of victim 1 Admitted To be read in Ex.P1
prepared by Dr. evidence
Kamal Kant Jain
2 Report prepared by 1 Admitted To be read in Ex.P2
Dr. Nitin Malik evidence
3 MCL of accused 1 Admitted To be read in Ex.P3
prepared by Dr. Vipin evidence
Kumar Jha
4 Proceedings u/s.164 4 Admitted To be read in Ex.P4
Cr.P.C. conduced by evidence
Sh. Dheeraj Mittal,
the then Ld. MM.
5 TIP Proceedings 1 Admitted To be read in Ex.P5
conducted by Sh. evidence
Sujit Saurabh, Ld.
MM
6 Statements of Ct. 1 Admitted To be read in Ex.P6
Pawan evidence
7 Statement of Ct. 1 Admitted To be read in Ex.P7
Mintu evidence
8 Electricity Bill of 1 Admitted To be read in Ex.P8
accused evidence
FIR No. 106/15 State Vs. Satyanaraina @ Siyaprasad page 4 of 7
5
12 On account of the admission/denial of documents, following witnesses were
dropped by the prosecution:
Serial No. Document/s Exhibit/s
1 Dr. Kamal Kant Jain As his report is already exhibited as Ex.P1
2 Dr. Nitin As his report is already exhibited as Ex.P2
3 Dr. Vipin Kumar Jha As his report is already exhibited as Ex.P3
4 Sh. Dheeraj Mittal, Ld. MM As the proceedings conducted by him is
already exhibited as Ex.P4
5 Sh. Sujit Saurabh, Ld. MM As the proceedings conducted by him is
already exhibited as Ex.P5
6 Ct. Pawan As his statement is already exhibited as
Ex.P6
7 Ct. Mintu Yadav As his statement is already exhibited as
Ex.P7
8 Manager, TPDDL As the electricity bill of the accused is
already exhibited as Ex.P8
13 After the closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/sec.313
Cr.P.C. In this statement all incriminating evidence was put to the accused. He stated that he is falsely implicated in this matter.
14 No DE was led.
15 I have gone through the record, evidence and submissions forwarded by L.d APP PP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. My observations are as under: FIR No. 106/15 State Vs. Satyanaraina @ Siyaprasad page 5 of 7 6 16 Following are the admitted/not disputed facts:
(i) The date of birth of victim as 10.02.2003 i.e. on the alleged date of incident he was minor (less than 18 years of age).
(ii) Accused is also known by the name of Siyaprasad.
17 It is the case of the prosecution that victim was allured by the accused on the pretext of offering him toffee and money. Thereafter he was taken by accused to his home and there the accused committed carnal intercourse with the victim which is against the nature.
18 In this case the prime witness who had to depose this fact, was the victim himself who had not supported the version of the prosecution. The witness I.e.PW2 was completely hostile to the previous statements and had not stated, any fact regarding the penetrative sexual assault in his statement in court. Similarly, PW3 i.e. mother of the victim had also not supported the case of the prosecution regarding penetrative sexual assault.
As far as the other witnesses, IO etc. are concerned, they are the witnesses of investigation only and cannot say anything about the alleged incident of penetrative sexual assault.
19 So, in these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the facts of the charge sheet regarding the penetrative sexual assault or carnal intercourse against the nature. Similarly, there is no evidence on record which shows that victim was ever allured and confined by the accused.
20 Hence accused is acquitted of the offence u/sec.342 IPC. Accused is acquitted for the offence u/sec.377 IPC. Accused is also acquitted for the offence u/sec.6 FIR No. 106/15 State Vs. Satyanaraina @ Siyaprasad page 6 of 7 7 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
21 Copy of order be given dasti to prosecution.
22 File be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED In the open Court (RAKESH PANDIT)
today i.e. 02.12.2015 ASJ01/New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts/New Delhi
FIR No. 106/15 State Vs. Satyanaraina @ Siyaprasad page 7 of 7
8
SC No. 81/15
State Vs. Satyanarain Vs. Siyaprasad
FIR No. 106/15
PS : Naraina
U/sec. 342/377 IPC and Sec.6 POCSO Act
02.12.2015
Present: Sh. Ravindra Kumar, Ld. APP for State.
Accused produced from JC.
Vide separate judgment, announced and dictated in open court, accused Satyanarain @ Siyaprasad is acquitted for the offences u/sec.342/377 IPC and Sec.6 POCSO Act. Bail bond cancelled. Surety is discharged. Accused is directed to furnish personal bond and surety bond u/sec. 437A Cr.P.C. Release warrants be issued.
Copy of order be given dasti to prosecution.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Rakesh Pandit) ASJ01/PHC/New Delhi District 02.12.2015 FIR No. 106/15 State Vs. Satyanaraina @ Siyaprasad page 8 of 7