Delhi District Court
State vs Arif S/O Mohd. Mustfa on 16 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA-I
JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (POCSO Act)/ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 01
(NORTH-EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.44745/2015
FIR No.406/2013
PS Bhajanpura
Under Section 376 IPC & 6 POCSO Act
State Versus Arif S/o Mohd. Mustfa
R/o Village Pathanpura, PS Surshand, District
Sitamarhi, Bihar
Date of institution of case : 19.12.2013
Date on which judgment reserved : 08.03.2017
Date of judgment pronounced : 15.03.2017
JUDGMENT:
1. On 30.09.2013, complainant Sh. Maqsood Alam made a complaint to the police that he used to do embroidery work and on that day he was present at his house. At about 1.00pm, his daughter, the victim, a minor girl aged about 03 years had gone out of the house while playing. After some time, he came out of the house but the victim could not be found. Thereafter, he searched for the victim in the neighbour and found the victim at the shop of one Babu Tailor, in naked condition. He also noticed that a boy Arif, who used to work in the said shop was also in the same condition and had been doing wrong act with the victim. He caught hold of Arif. On hearing commotion, some public persons/neighbours also gathered at the spot. He informed about the incident to his brother-in-law Arse, who reached there at about 6.00pm and made a call at number 100.
2. On the basis of above complaint, present case was registered for the offences punishable under Section 354/376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. Arif was SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 1 of 16 apprehended in this case. He disclosed his age to be 17 years before the police and in the absence of his age proof, he was treated as a juvenile and after his medical examination, he was produced before the JJB-II (Juvenile Justice Board-II). Thereafter, victim was produced before the Ld. MM for recording of her under Section 164 CrPC. The JCL and the victim were subjected to medical examination. Their samples were collected and sent for forensic analysis.
3. Meanwhile, during the course of investigation, age proof of the JCL (accused) was collected from his school at Sitamarhi, Bihar. According to the said record, his date of birth was 07.05.1995 and he was found to be about 18 years and 05 months of age at the time of alleged incident. Vide order dated 25.11.2013, the JJB directed the JCL to be tried as an adult accused. Thereafter, the accused was formally arrested in this case.
4. After completion of investigation and proceedings before the JJB, chargesheet was filed against accused Arif before this Court for the offences punishable under Section 354/376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Vide order dated 30.01.2014, on considering the material on record, Ld. Predecessor framed a charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However during trial, an alternate charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was also framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 17 witnesses at the trial:
PW-1 Sh. Maqsood Alam was the father of the victim and complainant of this case.
PW-2 Sh. Jai Bhagwan was the neighbour of PW-1. He had seen the accused SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 2 of 16 in the clutches of PW-1 at the spot and also came to know about the incident from the public persons.
PW-3 ASI Rati Ram was the duty officer. He proved the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW3/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/B. PW-4 Ct. Mahesh Kumar had deposited the exhibits of this case with FSL Rohihi.
PW-5 HC Pramod Kumar was another duty officer. He had recorded the information regarding the incident vide DD No.35-A and proved its copy vide Ex.PW5/A. PW-6 Ct. Arun had taken the accused to GTB Hospital for medical examination.
PW-7 Sh. Ram Tek, Assistant Health Inspector, MCD, Shahdara, North Zone proved the birth certificate of the victim as Ex.PW7/A. PW-8 HC Jitender was the MHC(M). He proved the copies of relevant entries in Register No.19 regarding depositing of the case property in the malkhana and sending them to the FSL as Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C, respectively.
PW-9 Dr. Sweta Lal had medically examined the victim. She proved the MLC of the victim as Ex.PW9/A and her treatment emergency card as Ex.PW9/B. PW-10 Dr. P. Ram proved the MLC of the accused as Ex.PW10/A. PW-11 SI Gopi Chand had reached the spot on receipt of DD No.35-A alongwith IO/SI Vandna and had brought the accused to the PS after his apprehension.
PW-12 Sh. Narul Haq was one of the neighbours, who was residing near the said shop i.e. place of incident. He deposed about his coming to know about SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 3 of 16 the incident. However, he was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP on some material aspects which he admitted in affirmative.
PW-13 Mohd. Arse Alam was the brother-in-law (saala) of the PW- 1/complainant. He deposed about his receiving the call about the incident from PW-1 as well as calling the police at number 100.
PW-14 Sh. Nizamuddin was a passerby who had seen the gathering of public persons near the shop of Babu Tailor i.e. the spot and came to know about the incident from them.
PW-15 Sh. Babu Ali was the owner of the shop where the incident had taken place.
PW-16 Sh. Prakash Kumar, Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Pathanpura, Surshand, District Sitamarhi, Bihar proved the school records of the accused as Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B, respectively. He deposed that as per their record, the date of birth of accused was 07.05.1995.
PW-17 SI Vandana was the IO of this case, who deposed about the investigation conducted by her in detail and also proved the various documents prepared/collected during the course of investigation.
6. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC and the entire incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied and pleaded innocence. He took the defence that he used to work in the kaarkhana (factory) of Babu Tailor but not at his shop and the shop was being run by one Masoom. He further stated that about 15/20 days of the alleged incident, wife of the complainant had come at the said factory for alteration of some old clothes and when he demanded the payment, some hot talks exchanged between them and she threatened him to take revenge and falsely implicated him in the present case and that he never committed the alleged incident. In SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 4 of 16 order to prove his defence, the accused examined one witness i.e. his father, DW-1 Mohd. Mustfa.
7. I have heard Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. S.K. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the accused and gone through the records.
8. In the instant case, the statement of the victim under Section 161 or 164 CrPC could not be recorded nor she could be examined in the Court for the sole reason that she was about 03 years of age at the time of alleged incident and could not speak or give details even by indication, of any incident which allegedly took place with her. Although, she was brought for examination under Section 164 CrPC, but despite efforts it could not be recorded and the Ld. MM, recorded his satisfaction to the effect that she was not able to understand the questions properly and was not in a position to give the statement regarding the incident in question. Hence, the present case rests on the sole testimony of her complainant father (PW-1), who is alleged to have seen the incident and had rescued and recovered the victim from the clutches of the accused.
9. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the accused has been falsely implicated and the present FIR was registered after due deliberations and manipulations and after an inordinate delay of five hours. According to him, complainant (PW-1) saw the incident at about 01.00pm and then called his brother-in-law Mohd. Arse (PW-13), who allegedly reached the spot at about 02.00pm, but despite that they waited till about 06.00pm, when the first call was made to the police. He accordingly submitted that the entire case has been manipulated and shows false implication of the accused.
10. I disagree with the contention raised by the Ld. Counsel and find no force in this argument. According to PW-1, the victim went out of the house while SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 5 of 16 playing at about 01.00pm and he noticed about her absence after some time and then went out. In the cross-examination, he deposed that distance to the said shop would take two minutes time to cover. Before that he had searched her nearby. Thus, it can be said that he located the victim at about 01.15pm and then must have called PW-13 with a span of five-ten minutes. It was deposed by PW-13 that when he received the phone call of the complainant, he was stationed at Chandni Chowk and from there he came to the spot i.e. North Ghonda. It must have taken him at least two hours to reach the spot from Chandni Chowk. Thus, he must have reached the spot at about 03.15pm. Though, in his cross-examination, he deposed that he reached the shop of the accused at about 4.00pm, after he received phone call from the complainant at about 03.00pm. The complainant, PW-1 himself deposed that PW-13 reached home at about 05.00pm. However, from the entire set of facts, as above and the relative distance between the places, it can be safely said that PW-13 must have reached the complainant between 03.00 to 04.00pm.
11. It is also to be noted that the neighbours had gathered at the spot after a hue and cry was raised by the complainant and have been examined in this case as PW-2, PW-12, PW-14 and PW-15. It was deposed by PW-15, who was the owner of the shop where the incident took place and under whom the accused was an employee that he had discussed the matter in the presence of the complainant with the father of the accused and other locality people but the matter could not be settled and then the brother-in-law of the complainant summoned the PCR. It would show that after the incident took place and after the arrival of PW-13 at the spot, other people gathered, some deliberations took place between them to cover up the matter or to say, to settle the matter but when all efforts failed then only, PW-13 called the PCR. This process must have taken some time. The PCR was informed at about 6.00pm. Hence, in any SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 6 of 16 case, there was no undue delay in reporting the matter to the police. In State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh AIR 1996 SC 1993, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "in sexual offences, the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her relatives to lodge the FIR is of relevant consideration. It is only after giving it a cool thought that the FIR of sexual offence is lodged, therefore, delay is not only properly explained but also found to be natural". In the instant case, considering all the facts and circumstances, the delay of five hours, if any, cannot to be said to be unnatural, undue or inordinate nor it can be said that the FIR was manipulated.
12. It was further argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that three of the witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PWs 2, 13, 14 and 15, deposed the date of incident to be 01.10.2013, instead of 30.09.2013 and such, termed them to be planted witnesses. It this regard it is to be observed that PW-2 clarified the date of incident on the leading question put by the Ld. Addl. PP and admitted it to be 30.09.2013. PW-12 deposed the same date i.e. 30.09.2013 in his examination-in-chief. However, PWs 13, 14 and 15 deposed the date of incident to be 01.10.2013. It was clarified by the Ld. Addl. PP that their statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded on 01.10.2013, therefore, they might have got confused regarding the date of incident for which an application was moved under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the said witnesses but the Court declined to allow the said application on the ground that it was moved at a belated stage. Nevertheless, simply if these witnesses deposed an incorrect date of incident while deposing all the other facts correctly, it cannot be said that they are planted witnesses when the date has been confirmed by other witnesses including the complainant and the IO. In any case, the date of incident is not in dispute as even the MLC of the victim was prepared at 04.10am on 01.10.2015.
SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 7 of 16
13. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the incident allegedly took place inside the shop, whereas the accused has been shown to be apprehended in the factory of the owner of the shop which is situated at Ghonda Chowk and is at quite some distance. However, there is nothing on record to show as to how he reached there and thus submitted that defence becomes justified that the accused never worked at the shop but in the factory of its owner/PW-15. Again, I disagree with this contention as the explanation has come in the testimony of PW-1 himself when he deposed during his cross-examination that after apprehending the accused, he took him to the karkhana of Babu Tailor (PW-15). The fact of PW-1 taking accused to the factory of PW-15 also appeals senses so as to make or lodge complaint with his employee. There was no further cross- examination of this witness on this aspect.
14. The Ld. Counsel for the accused raised another contention that the shop where the incident is alleged to have been committed measures about 03 feet X 06 feet and two stitching machines were installed therein, as deposed by PW-1 in his cross-examination. Similarly, the Ld. Counsel pointed out that the IO, PW- 17 deposed that a table had been placed at the entrance of the said shop. Thus, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the acts alleged to have been done or committed inside the shop were visible to the public passing through the shop and as such, it was not possible for the accused to have committed the act. He further submitted that as per the deposition of prosecution witnesses, another shop owned by one Naveen was just adjacent to the said shop where as per PW-1, four or five persons were present at the time of the alleged incident. However, neither anyone saw the accused taking the victim inside or anyone heard any cries or shrieks of the victim. He also pointed out to the cross- examination of PW-1 when he deposed that the public persons are usually present on the road where the shop is situated and also admitted that while SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 8 of 16 going through the said shop, the activities in the shop are visible.
15. For the act committed by the accused, the size of the shop is immaterial since the child was too small and it was not possible for her to be laid on the floor. Furthermore, as per the allegations of PW-1, the accused was holding the victim in his lap and was committing the act. The fact that a table was placed at the entrance of the shop would ensure that the activities were not clearly visible unless and until some one purposely peeps into the shop. The passersby are not generally concerned with the activities in the shop that too of a tailor, which has no apparent attractions for the general public like other shops or stores which have various hangouts to attract general public. The complainant being the father and searching for the victim must have been more vigilant and therefore, even purposely looked into the shop and saw the act of the accused. It was not unusual. As far as the question of other shop is concerned, that was adjacent and not opposite to the shop of the accused and anyone sitting there could never have seen the activities in that shop where the incident took place. The victim was a small child of three years and even if the accused had lifted her, no one would have suspected his bad intentions as such small children are even picked up or touched just out of love and affection and normally no one can perceive any foul play.
16. It is a matter of record that PW-1 never deposed that the victim was crying when he saw her or anyone had heard her shrieks etc. There are various means of enticing a small child and to keep him/her quiet. The medical examination of the victim shows that there was no penile penetration which would have caused great pain to her and as such, there was no question of the victim crying. Hence, these arguments advanced by the Ld. Defence Counsel at bar have no merits in my opinion.
17. The testimony of PW-15 may again be referred here, who was the employer of SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 9 of 16 the accused and the owner of shop. He deposed that he discussed the matter in the presence of the father of the victim with the father of the accused and other locality people but the matter could not be settled. He never deposed that as to what was the matter which had to be resolved between them, particularly in the presence of the father of the accused. The accused has taken a defence that about 15-20 days prior to the incident, the mother of the victim had come for alteration of her clothes and when he asked for the payment, she got angry and some hot talks were exchanged between the two and she threatened to take revenge. It is pertinent to mention that PW-15 was the best witness to whom, this defence could have been put in the form of suggestion but no such suggestion was put to him. It would mean that what PW-15 was deposing was regarding the alleged incident only and thus it again points out towards the truthfulness of PW-1.
18. Ld. Defence Counsel further pointed out to an improvement appearing in the testimony of PW-1. In his examination, he deposed that "private parts of the accused were wet with semen discharge due to intercourse". This fact was never stated by PW-1 in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. However, it is recorded in Ex.PW1/A that the accused was doing wrong act and with his daughter. No doubt this is an improvement in the testimony of PW-1, but is not so material so as to make out a new case. Furthermore, the improved fact/deposition of PW-1, as aforesaid, is rather corroborated by the medical evidence. In the FSL report Ex. C-1, the seminal stains of the accused were accounted on the wearing pajami of the victim and if PW-1 explained the acts of the accused and his actual condition, they are reflected in the FSL result.
19. The next most important piece of evidence is the medical evidence. The victim was medically examined by PW-9 and she observed two injuries on her local examination i.e. (i) superficial erosion on right side of vulva and (ii) SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 10 of 16 superficial laceration near hymen. She observed that the hymen of the victim was intact with no active bleeding. The alleged history of the offence was given by the father of the victim to the doctor and understandably so, as the victim was unable to speak as is clear from the fact that her statement could not be recorded either under Section 161 or 164 CrPC or before the Court. In the cross-examination, PW-9 ruled out that the said injuries could have been caused due to play or fall on the ground but explained that such injuries could be caused if the child plays on the ground after widely opening her legs and exposing the perenium to the ground. There is no evidence on record that the victim had at any time played on the ground with her legs wide open. However, this is possible in the manner the alleged act was committed by the accused while keeping the victim on his lap where the legs of the victim must have been wide open. It can be understood that the victim was too small and therefore penile penetration by the accused was not possible and he must have attempted or rubbed his penis with force on her private parts resulting into injuries, as aforesaid. It is also pertinent to mention that in the FSL result Ex. C-1, blood was observed on the vaginal secretion of the victim, Ex. 1e2 and 1e3. This could have been again as a result of attempted penile penetration. Apart from that, as already observed above, the seminal stains of the accused were found on the pajami of the victim in the FSL result and there is no explanation to it by the accused. It was only during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, after the result was put to him, that he took a plea that the IO in collusion with the father of the victim pressurized him, got him forcibly ejaculated and put his semen on the pajami of the victim while in police custody. On one hand, ejaculation is not possible under fear or duress when the accused was in police custody. What is more important is that this plea was never raised by him during the entire trial and no suggestion to this effect was put either to PW-1 or to the IO, the most important witness in this respect and SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 11 of 16 hence is clearly an afterthought. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the version of PW-1 and cannot be ignored without any satisfactory explanation coming from the accused.
20.Ld. Defence Counsel further pointed out that the accused was only an employee and one Masoom, nephew of the owner Babu (PW-15) used to sit at the shop and therefore, the alleged offence was not possible. However, PW-1 in his cross-examination deposed that on the date of incident Masoom was not sitting there. No question regarding the presence of Masoom on the shop at the time of the incident was put to PW-15, the owner who could have been the best person to depose about it, hence, this plea cannot be accepted.
21. The defence of the accused has already been referred to hereinabove that the wife of PW-1 had a quarrel with him over payment of money for alteration of clothes about 15-20 days prior to the incident and threatened him to taken revenge. Again this defence was never specifically put to PW-1 during the cross-examination. However, this defence was put only to the IO in the form of suggestion, which she denied.
22.The accused also examined his father, DW-1 to prove this defence. He deposed that on 29.09.2013, at about 12.30pm, he had gone to serve meals to the accused at this factory at Ghonda Chowk where one lady namely Wazira (wife of the complainant) was quarreling with the accused and demanding money on the pretext that her clothes were ruined because of the wrong stitching and became useless for her and that the accused was saying that she should demand money from the factory owner but she insisted the accused to make the payment as he had spoiled her clothes. He further deposed that then Wazira caught the accused by his collar and gave him slaps while demanding money and threatened him to implicate in a false case, which he would always remember. This defence is self contradictory. DW-1 deposed that the said SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 12 of 16 incident took place on 29.09.2013, while the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC deposed that this incident took place about 15-20 days prior to the alleged incident. During the entire trial, the accused never introduced his father, DW-1 and never suggested to any witness, particularly PW-1 and PW- 17 regarding his presence. In the cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that he never informed the police about the said facts as deposed by him, though he remained in the police station for two-three hours, nor filed any complaint against Wazira nor even informed any person about the said incident. At least, a father cannot be expected to keep quiet if his son is falsely implicated in such a heinous crime. Hence, his testimony on one hand does not inspire confidence and is contradictory to the statement made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC and on the other hand, accused has failed to come forward with any cogent explanation or reason why witnesses have been deposing falsely against him. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-1 could not be impeached during cross-examination and he withstood his ground.
23. Thus it is clear from the aforesaid that the prosecution has been able to prove that the PW-1, the father of the victim, who was a natural witness had seen the accused committing the act of rape with his victim daughter.
24. It is also clear from the aforesaid that there is not a complete penile penetration into the vagina of the victim. However, the amended Section 375 IPC provides that "a man is said to commit rape if he penetrates is penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth ... ...". A similar provision has been made in Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act, which provides that "a person is said to commit penetrative sexual assault, if he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into vagina, mouth etc. ... ... ". Hence, as per the definition of rape/penetrative sexual assault, complete penetration is not material. The victim was less than 16 years of age at the time of the incident and as such, the offence of rape would be under SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 13 of 16 Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
25.According to Section 42 of the POCSO Act, wherein an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under any other law for the time being in force then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment only under such law or this Act as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.
26.Section 376(2)(i) IPC provides for punishment which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life and shall also be liable to fine. Section 6 of the POCSO Act provides for punishment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. A comparison of the two provisions would show that they provide for an identical punishment. However, the definition of life imprisonment, appearing in Section 376(2)(i) IPC makes it more severe and greater in degree than that provided in Section 6 POCSO Act. Thus, the accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and is convicted for the said offences.
27. In view of the aforesaid, accused Arif is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and is convicted accordingly.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15th day of March 2017 (Sanjay Sharma-I) Judge Special Court (POCSO Act), Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 14 of 16 IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA-I JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (POCSO Act)/ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (NORTH-
EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.44745/2015
FIR No.406/2013
PS Bhajanpura
Under Section 376 IPC & 6 POCSO Act
State Versus Arif S/o Mohd. Mustfa
R/o Village Pathanpura, PS Surshand,
District Sitamarhi, Bihar
Order on sentence :
1. Vide judgment dated 15.03.2017, convict Arif was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable 376(2)(i) IPC.
2. I have heard Sh. Sukhbeer Singh Ld. Addl. PP for the State, assisted by Ms. Shabnam Khan - Advocate/RCC Lawyer from DCW and Sh. SK Shukla - Ld. Counsel for the convict.
3. It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that maximum punishment should be awarded to the convict since he has been found guilty of committing rape upon the victim, a minor girl, who was aged about three years at the time of the incident. He submitted that in case severe punishment is not inflicted upon the convict, a wrong message would go to the society that such criminals can escape with simple imprisonment.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict submitted that the convict is aged about 22 years and had been recently married and further that his wife is in advance stage of pregnancy. He further submitted that the convict is the eldest child of his parents and has to look after his aged parents and younger siblings. He further submitted that the convict is a first time offender with no criminal antecedents and as such, it was prayed that a lenient view may be taken.
5. I have considered the mitigating and the aggravating circumstances as presented SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 15 of 16 before me.
6. Accordingly, convict Arif is hereby sentenced as under:
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) IPC. In case of non-payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
7. Convict remained in judicial custody since 28.11.2013 to 28.04.2014 and thereafter since 15.03.2017. Benefit of Section 428 CrPC is also extended to the convict.
8. The victim is also entitled to compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC. The convict had been asked if he can pay any compensation but he submitted that he was doing a private job of stitching clothes and that he is a very poor person and therefore, unable to pay any compensation. This court is satisfied regarding the financial status of the convict as submitted by him. In view thereof, it is directed that a sum of Rs.1 lac be paid as compensation to the victim under the Victim Compensation Act through DLSA and a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Secretary, DLSA, North-East District for compliance.
A copy of the judgment and this order be also given to the convict free of cost. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16th day of March 2017 (Sanjay Sharma-I) Judge Special Court (POCSO Act), Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.44745/15 - FIR No.406/13 PS Bhajanpura page 16 of 16