Delhi District Court
Sc No. 53111/16 : Fir No. 85/16 : Ps Keshav ... vs Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva on 27 March, 2018
SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva
IN THE COURT OF AMIT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
(NORTHWEST)01 : SPECIAL COURT : POCSO, ROHINI DISTRICT
COURTS: DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 5311/16)
State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva
FIR No. : 85/16
U/s : 377/506 IPC
& Sec. 6 of POCSO Act
P.S. : Keshav Puram
State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva
S/o Ram Dev Yadav
R/o House no. 4210, 2nd Floor,
Hansa Puri Road, Ram Pura,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
Permanent Address :
Village Kalna, Basopati,
Madhubani, Bihar
Date of institution of case : 28.04.2016
Date of arguments : 21.03.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.03.2018
Page 1 of 21
SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva
J U D G M E N T :
1.The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on 29.01.2016, after entrustment of DD no. 34A, ASI Sanwar Mal along with Ct. Amit reached at the informed place, where complainant R.., the mother of victim met and got her statement to the effect that on 29.01.2016 at about 1.00 am, her son S... (hereinafter referred to as 'child victim), a minor boy aged about 5 years, disclosed to her that accused had called him in his room and inserted his penis into his anus after removing his clothes, due to which, he suffered a lot of pain and after committing this act, the accused also threatened him not to disclose about this to anyone, otherwise he would kill him. She further stated that she herself checked the anus of child victim and found the some blood was oozing from it. When her husband returned home in the night at around 11.00 pm, she told him about it and thereafter, police was informed. As the accused himself represented at JCL, further proceedings were conducted by JWO SI Surajpal. Child victim and accused were medically examined in the hospital separately and their exhibits were seized. Case FIR was got registered. Accused/JCL was apprehended. Site plan of the place of incident was prepared. Scene of occurrence was got inspected through Crime Team, samples were lifted and same was also got photographed. Accused/JCL was produced before JJBII and thereafter, he was sent to OHB. The statement of child victim U/S 164 CrPC was got recorded. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini. After a detailed age inquiry, the accused was found an 'adult' on the date of offence and Page 2 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva thereafter, his charge sheet was filed before this court and he was also produced before this court.
2. After filing of the charge sheet in the matter, the copy thereof, was supplied to the accused. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and on 06.06.2016, charges u/s 5 (m) of POCSO Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), punishable u/s 6 of Act, alternatively u/s 377 IPC and u/s 506 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case by the child victim at the instance of her parents because of a previous quarrel between him and father of the victim over parking of rickshaw. Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.
4. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by Ld.Addl.PP on behalf of State and Sh. Rajnish Kumar Antil, learned Amicu Curie, for the accused and perused the entire material on record. Before adverting to the arguments advanced at bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter.
5. PW1, HC Hans Ram was working as MHCM at PS Keshav Puram at the Page 3 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva relevant period and he proved the entries made by him in register no. 19 and 21 as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/C, which were made by him at the time of deposit of case property with him and at the time of sending the same to FSL Rohini and deposed regarding the same.
There is no material cross examination of this witness.
6. PW2 Dr. InderPal Yadav, proved the MLC of the child victim as Ex. PW2/A by identifying the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Gaurav, who had examined the child victim under his supervision and deposed that after examination, Dr. Gaurav referred the child victim to SR Surgery for further examination and opinion. He also proved the MLC of the accused as Ex. PW 2/B by identifying the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Gaurav, who had examined the accused under his supervision and deposed that after examination, Dr. Gaurav referred the accused to SR Surgery for further examination and opinion. He further deposed that on 18.03.2016, the accused was again brought for medical examination by the police and he was medically examined by Dr. Gaurav vide MLC Ex. PW2/C under his supervision and thereafter, he was referred to Medical Board for ossification test.
There is no material cross examination of this witness.
7. Child victim, in the present case was examined as PW3 and the relevant portion of his testimony is as under : Page 4 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva "xxx Q. Beta aap kahan rehte ho?
Ans. Teesri manzil per.
Q. Beta Deva uncle kahan rehte hain?
Ans. Wo neeche wali manzil per rehte hain.
Q. Beta batao kya hua tha?
Ans. Mujhe Deva uncle in bulaya tha aur mere peechhe wale mai apna susu daal diya tha.
Q. Beta fir kya hua tha?
Ans. Mera muh daab diya tha. Maine shor nahi machaya.
Q. Beta aapne kisko bataya tha?
Ans. Apni mummy ko.
Q Beta fir appki mummy ne kya kiya?
Ans. Unhone fir papa ko bata diya aur papa ne police ko phone kar diya.
Q Beta fir kya hua?
Ans. Police mujhe apne thana le gai.
Q. Beta fir thana le jaa kar kya kiya?
Ans. Fir mujhe hospital le gaye aur fir wahan per mujhe suiya laga ( injection) Q. Beta kya aap pehle bhi court main aaye the?
Ans. Haan (witness is referring to recording of his Page 5 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva statement U/S 164 CrPC).
Q. Beta kya aap aaj us Deva uncle ko pehchan sakte ho?
Ans. Haan, wo aaj peechhe baitha hai.
xxx"
Child victim identified the accused in the court.
During crossexamination by learned Amicus Curie, she stated as under : "xxx Mere papa ki paas rickshaw hai. Ye kehna sahi hai ki mere papa ki rickshaw accused ke ghar ke saamne hi khadi rehti hai. Ye baat sahi hai ki accused ko achha nahi lagta tha ki mere papa ki rickshaw uske ghar ke saamne khadi ho aur is baat per mere papa ki aur Deva uncle ki ladai hui thi. Ek baar main apne bhai ke sath khelte khelte cycle per muh ke bal gir gaya tha. Ye kehna galat hain ki papa ke kehne per maine aaj Deva uncle ke baare main jhooth bola hai. Ye kehna galat hain ki Deva uncle ne mere sath kuchh nahi kiya.
xxx"
Page 6 of 21SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva
8. PW4 Smt. R.., mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that about 89 months ago in the month of 'Magh' (January) at about 1 or 1:30 p.m, child victim, had come to her crying and on inquiry, he told her that Deva uncle (accused) had called him in his room while he was going to play downstairs and had committed wrong act with him by putting his private part in anus of child victim. She further deposed that hearing this, she checked child victim from back side and found that he was slightly bleeding from there and thereafter, she got nervous and due to shame, she did not inform about the incident to any other neighbour and waited for her husband. She further deposed that after her husband returned home at 11 p.m, she informed him about the incident and thereafter, her husband had gone to the room of accused, who had confessed his guilt and then the police was informed. She further deposed that police had made inquiry from her and recorded her statement Ex. PW4/A. She also proved the site plan Ex. PW4/B of the place of incident, prepared by the police at her instance and her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C as ex. PW4/C. During crossexamination, she denied the suggestion that child victim received injury while playing with his brother or the accused was falsely implicated in the present case as her husband was having a quarrel with him.
9. PW5 Sh. Amar Poddar, father of the child victim deposed on the line of his wife examined as PW4 and further deposed that after coming to know about the incident, he had gone to the room of accused, who had confessed his guilt and Page 7 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva thereafter, police was called. He further deposed that child victim was born in his native village on 19.01.2011, but he did not obtain any proof regarding her date of birth from any authority.
There is no material cross examination of this witness.
10. PW6 W/ASI Anita, deposed that on 30.10.2016, on the direction of the SHO, she had gone to the spot, where JWO SI Suraj Pal and accused was found present and as the accused has claimed juvenility, the JWO made inquiries from the accused in her presence.
There is no material cross examination of this witness.
11. PW7 Ct. Vikas, had taken the exhibits of the present case to FSL Rohini, vide RC no. 32/21/16 and deposited the same there and deposed regarding the same.
There is no material cross examination of this witness.
12. PW8, HC Deepak Kumar, was lying posted as D.D writer in PS Keshav Puram at the relevant time and he proved the attested copy of DD no. 34A as Ex. PW8/A, recorded by him regarding commission of wrong act upon the child victim at House no. 4210, Hansa Puri Road, Ram Pura, Tri Nagar.
There is no cross examination of this witness.
Page 8 of 21SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva
13. PW9 SI Suraj Pal was posted as JWO in PS Keshav Puram and as the initial stage of the investigation, the accused claimed himself to be a juvenile, he reached at the spot and made inquiries from the child victim and the accused. He also proved the apprehension memo of accused as Ex. PW9/A, version made by the accused as Ex. PW9/B and social report of the accused as Ex. PW9/C. He further deposed about producing the accused before JJB, from where he was sent to Observation home.
There is no cross examination of this witness.
14. PW10 ASI Sawarmal, is the Investigating Officer of the case and he deposed that on 29.01.2016, after entrustment of DD No. 34A, he went to the spot at H. No. 4210, Iind Floor, Hansa Puri, Ram Pura, Tri Nagar, Delhi, where he met with child victim and her parents and accused was also found present and initially, on finding both i.e. victim and offender minor, he gave information in the PS vide DD No. 4A Ex. PW10/A1, upon which W/SI Anita and SI Suraj Pal, JWO reached at the abovesaid spot. He further deposed about getting the child victim and the accused medically examined at BJRM Hospital and about seizure of their exhibits vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/B. He further deposed about recording the statement Ex. PW4/A of the complainant, about preparation of the rukka Ex. PW10/A2, about getting the case registered, about seizure of hair as well as one blanket at the instance of child victim vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/C and Page 9 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva Ex. PW10/D, about recording the statements of the witnesses and about the proceedings conducted by PW9 SI Suraj Pal, JWO at the spot. He further deposed about getting the ossification test of accused conducted and declaring him as Major by the concerned JJB after a detailed inquiry. She further deposed about getting the statement of the child victim and his mother recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C, about sending the exhibits sent to FSL Rohini, about collecting the FSL result Ex. PW10/F and Ex. PW10/G vide application Ex. PW10/E and she also proved the DD entry no. 33B made in this regard as Ex. PW10/H. He further deposed about filing of the charge sheet on completion of investigation. He proved the case property i.e. match box with hair as Ex. P1 and blanket Ex. P2.
During crossexamination, he admitted that place of incident was a residential area and stated that he had not recorded any statement of any neighbour as during the course of inquiry, he did not find any person who had seen the child victim while entering the room of accused or going away from the same. He denied that during the course of investigation, he came to know that the child victim sustained injury due to a fall on a bicycle while playing with other children or the blanket was planted in the present case after due fabrication or exhibits were fabricated and tampered at the police station prior to sending the same to FSL.
15. PW11, Sh. Dharmender Singh, ld. M.M, in his evidence proved statement of child victim as Ex. PW11/B, recorded by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 05.02.2016.
Page 10 of 21SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva There is no cross examination of this witness.
16. PW12 ASI Bhujvir, was posted as duty officer in PS Keshav Puram at the relevant time and he proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW12/A, endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex. PW10/A2 and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as Ex. PW12/B. There is no material cross examination of this witness.
17. PW13 Dr. Narender, SR Surgery, examined the child victim vide MLC Ex. PW2/A and deposed that on local examination, he found 'superficial multiple small abrasions present around pereanal region and one small superficial abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm was found present at 12 O'clock region. He advised for proctoscopy as well as for rectal swab sample and sealed the undergarments of the victim and handed it over to the IO. He also proved the potency report of the accused.
During crossexamination, he denied that during play, such type of injuries were possible, if a child falls on a bicycle.
18. The Ld. Addl. P P for the State has very vehemently argued that in the matter, a minor child, aged about 5 years was subject to aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the accused and the child victim has been consistent throughout the investigation and trial with regard to the act of penetrative sexual assault committed upon him by the accused and his testimony finds fully corroboration Page 11 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva with the medical as well as forensic evidence. It is further argued that the accused has failed to prove his defence in the matter and as such the conviction of the accused for the charged offence has been prayed for.
19. Per contra, the Ld. Amicus Curiae, Sh. Rajnish Kumar Antil, advocate has very vehemently argued that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of child victim as he is a child of tender age and is easily pliable by his parents. It is further argued that there is considerable delay in reporting the matter to the police, which shows the deliberation and tutoring the child victim. It is next argued that the place of incident was situated in a residential house, but no independent witness was joined during the investigation and the conviction of the accused cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of child victim and as such, it is prayed that he be acquitted of the charged offence.
20. I have considered the arguments advanced at bar and carefully gone through the entire record.
21. The learned Amicus curie has very vehemently argued that as per the version of the complainant, the alleged incident took place on 29.01.2016 at about 1.00 pm, whereas the FIR in the matter was recorded on 30.01.2016 at about 3.05 am and as such, the false implication of the accused after due deliberation and consultation cannot be ruled out.
Page 12 of 21SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva
22. In the present case, the child victim is a small child of 5 years of age and after the incident, he reported the matter to his mother/PW4. PW4 in her evidence deposed that hearing the version of child victim, she checked him from back side and found that he was slightly bleeding from there and on seeing this, she got nervous and could not understand want to do and thereafter, due to shame, she could not inform about the incident to any other neighbour and waited for her husband, who returned at around 11.00 pm and thereafter, her husband had gone to the room of the accused, who had confessed his guilt and thereafter, he had gone downstairs and informed one police officials, who used to stand near Chaudhary hotel, about the incident and later on police officials reached there and took her as well as child victim to PS Keshav Puram and then to BJRM Hospital. Even PW8 HC Deepak Kumar, DD writer has deposed that he received information commission of wrong act upon child victim at about 11.30 pm and as such, it is clear that after return of husband of complainant, matter was reported to the police and as such, through the testimony of PW4, the prosecution has been able to explain the delay in recording of FIR in the matter. Having this opinion, I am fortified by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170, wherein it was held : "xxxx
24. ........... In the case of sexual offences there is another consideration which may weigh in the mind of Page 13 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva the court i.e. the initial hesitation of the victim to report the matter to the police which may affect her family life and family's reputation. Very often in such cases only after considerable persuasion the prosecutrix may be persuaded to disclose the true facts. There are also cases where the victim may choose to suffer the ignominy rather than to disclose the true facts which may cast a stigma on her for the rest of her life. These are cases where the initial hesitation of the prosecutrix to disclose the true facts may provide a good explanation for the delay in lodging the report. In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and the court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case. Different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the court that is important. No straitjacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts. It is settled law that however similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another. (See Page 14 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad [(1955) 1 SCR 1083 :
AIR 1955 SC 216] .) Thus mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the court of fact.
xxx"
23. So far as the arguments of nonjoining independent witness in the present case is concerned, it is a well settled law that the conviction on the sole evidence of a child witness is permissible if such witness is found competent to testify by the court, after careful scrutiny of its evidence, In case of Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341, it was held that, "xxx A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would Page 15 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his / her demeanor must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored."
24. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of UP Vs. Krishan Master, AIR 2010 SC 3071, has been pleased to hold that : "xxx There is no principle of law that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age would not be able to recapitulate the facts in his memory. A Child is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in his life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life. The child may be able to recapitulate carefully and exactly when asked about the same in the future. In case the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, and the same inspire confidence of the Court, his deposition does not require any corroboration whatsoever. The child at a tender age is incapable of having any malice or ill will against any person. Therefore, there must be something on record to satisfy the Court that something had gone wrong between the date of Page 16 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva incident and recording evidence of the child witness due to which the witness wanted to implicate the accused falsely in a case of a serious nature.
xxx"
25. If the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is applied to the facts of the present case then it would be evident that the child victim is consistent in his all the statements i.e. statement recorded U/S 164 CrPC Ex. PW 4/D and his evidence recorded in the court. In his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C, he has stated that "Deva ne mera munh daba diya aur apna susu wala meri latrine wali jagah me dal diya. Mujhe dard hua aur khoon bhi nikla" At the time of recording of his testimony in the court as PW3, he has deposed that "Mujhe Deva uncle in bulaya tha aur mere peechhe wale mai apna susu daal diya tha. Mera muh daab diya tha. Maine shor nahi machaya" Despite the child victim being of tender age he has given clear and cogent account of the facts of the case. His veracity could not be shaken even in his crossexamination by the defence. His evidence is accordingly found to be trustworthy and believable and same is duly supported by the testimony of his mother examined as PW4 as well as by medical and forensic evidence.
26. Prosecution has examined PW13 Dr. Narender in order to prove the injuries sustained by the child victim during the commission of offence upon him and PW 13 proved the MLC of the victim as Ex. PW2/A and deposed that on local Page 17 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva examination, he found 'superficial multiple small abrasions present around pere anal region of the victim and one small superficial abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm was found present at 12 O'clock region.
27. Further, the exhibits of the victim as well as accused as well as exhibits collected from the spot were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and after examination, the FSL result Ex.PW10/F along with data allelic charte Ex. PW 10/G was received and as per the FSL result, DNA profile of exhibit '3' (cotton wool swab of the victim) and '8' (blood stained gauze of accused) was accounted in the source of exhibit '1' (Hair), which were lifted and seized by the IO from the place of incident.
28. The accused has claimed false implication in the matter because of previous quarrel between him and father of the accused over parking of a rickshaw, but he has failed to bring any trustworthy material in this regard on record.
29. This has to be born in mind that the present case is under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and this act was enacted with the objective that the children of tender age are not abused and their childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and they are given facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in condition of freedom and dignity. The aims and object of the act further consider it imperative that the law operates in a manner that the best interest Page 18 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva and well being of the child are regarded as being of paramount importance at every stage, to ensure the healthy physical emotional, intellectual and social development of the child. The preamble of the Act reads as under : 'An act to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and provide for establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.'
30. Therefore, the act is a special act, which has been enacted bearing in mind the child psychology as well as the latent sexual abuse of children in the society as well as family, which is apparent from the provisions of Section 29 and 30 thereof, which are reproduced as under :
29. Presumption as to certain offences - Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved.
30. Presumption of culpable mental state - (1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defence for the Page 19 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. (2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
31. In the light of the aim and objects of the Act and the specific provisions like Section 29 and 30 of the Act, reproduced hereinabove, the presumption of innocence of the accused as is available to him under ordinary criminal jurisprudence is not available, in child abuse jurisprudence and the presumption, if any, available under the Act are to be considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not under the ordinary criminal jurisprudence.
32. In this case the claim of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the matter is not sustainable because it is not believable that one can use his small child and cause such type of injuries on his person only in order to falsely implicate a person over such trivial issue. The accused has not led any positive evidence to substantiate his defence. In terms of the aforesaid provisions the onus upon the accused to prove his innocence is quite heavy which he had failed to discharge. The defence has not questioned the age of child victim during trial. Although, there is no need for corroboration of the evidence of child victim, yet the medical Page 20 of 21 SC No. 53111/16 : FIR No. 85/16 : PS Keshav Puram : State V/s Dev Kumar Yadav @ Deva evidence as well as forensic evidence available on record duly corroborates the version of child victim as set out in the evidence of PW3.
33. However, perusal of the record shows that the child victim did not level any allegations of criminal intimidation against the accused in his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and during his evidence before the court, hence the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 506 IPC.
34. In view of the above discussion, it is hereby held that prosecution has succeeded in proving charges against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 6 of the Act r/w 5 (m) of POCSO Act. Consequently, the accused stands convicted of the aforesaid offence. As the accused has already been convicted u/s 6 of POCSO Act, there is no need to convict him in alternate Section 377 IPC.
35. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence on 02.04.2018.
Announced in the open Court (Amit Kumar)
on 27.03.2018 Addl. Sessions Judge01 (NorthWest):
Rohini District Courts: New Delhi
Page 21 of 21