Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil @ Neele on 3 September, 2014
State Vs. Anil @ Neele
FIR NO: 19/2013
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :--
SC No. : 05/02/13
FIR No. : 19/2013
Police : Dwarka North
Station
Under : u/s 12 of The Protection
Section of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
State
Versus
Anil @ Neele
S/o Bhim Singh
R/o B-2, Tara Nagar, Kakrola
New Delhi ... Accused
Fresh charge : 07.03.2013
sheet filed on
Reserved for : 16.08.2014
judgment on
Judgment : 26.08.2014
announced on
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.01.2013, a PCR call was received at PS Dwarka North which was reduced into writing vide DD No.28A with regard to dirty gestures to a child FIR NO: 19/13 1/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 victim. On receipt of said DD, HC Sunil had gone to H.No.B-1/34, Tara Nagar, Kakrola, New Delhi where he met complainant/child victim. Child victim had made a complaint against accused. [The name of child victim is being withheld to protect her identity U/s 33(7) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act).]
2. In her complaint Ex.PW1/A. Child victim stated that accused, who is her neighbour used to pass dirty gestures and when one day she had gone to purchase bottle of milk, accused followed her and made dirty gestures and also showed his mobile phone and pointed fingers at her thereby intending that she should call him on his mobile phone.
3. On the basis of complaint of child victim, FIR NO.19/13 PS Dwarka North was registered and matter was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, statement of child victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded and statement of her mother was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
4. After completion of investigation, accused was charge sheeted for the offence u/s 12 of POCSO Act and chargesheet was directly filed before this court. After taking cognizance, accused was summoned and copy of chargesheet was supplied to him.
FIR NO: 19/13 2/24State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 Thereafter, after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record, accused was charged for the offence u/s 12 of POCSO Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence.
5. Prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses.
6. PW1 Child victim has deposed on oath that she is a student of 9th class and accused resides in her neighbourhood. PW1 deposed that accused was daily making dirty gestures by eyes and by showing his mobile phone and pointing fingers at her thereby intending that she should call him on his mobile phone from the vacant plot outside her house for the past two days prior to 27.01.2013. PW1 deposed that on 27.01.2013, she went to take bottle of infant milk from the chemist shop when accused started following her and asked her to take his mobile phone and also asked her to talk to him. PW1 deposed that after hearing the comments of accused, she started walking fast towards the chemist shop. PW1 deposed that accused followed her. Thereafter, she purchased infant milk from the chemist shop and while she was returning, accused again started following her and was making gestures. PW1 deposed that when she changed her route by taking the second street to come to her house, accused again followed her in the second street. PW1 deposed that after reaching the house, she FIR NO: 19/13 3/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 narrated the entire facts to her mother. PW1 further deposed that while she was narrating the facts to her mother, accused came and sat in the vacant plot opposite to their house. Thereafter, her mother called the police at 100 number. PW1 proved her statement recorded by police Ex.PW1/A. PW1 deposed that police arrested accused Anil @ Neele on the same day at her instance. PW1 deposed that she had shown to the police the place of incident and at her instance, site plan was prepared. PW1 proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.vide Ex.PW1/C. PW1 correctly identified the accused.
7. In her cross examination, PW1 deposed that she told the police in her statement Ex.PW1/A that she was going to chemist shop. PW1 deposed that she had also told the police in her statement Ex.PW1/A that accused was sitting in the vacant plot opposite to their house after returning from the chemist shop. PW1 had told the police in her statement Ex.PW1/A that when accused was making dirty gestures and following her, she had reached at the chemist shop by walking briskly. PW1 deposed that she had told the police in her statement Ex.PW1/A that accused had followed her to her house while returning from the chemist shop.PW1 deposed that she had told the police in her statement Ex.PW1/A that when she had changed her route by taking a second street while coming back to her house, accused continued to follow her. PW1 deposed that she had FIR NO: 19/13 4/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 told the police that accused was following her daily for the past two days prior to 27.01.2013.
8. PW1 deposed that she had told the police that one day prior to 27.01.2013, accused had asked her to take his mobile and they will talk on phone which she had stated before the Ld.Magistrate in Ex.PW1/C. PW1 further deposed that she had told the police that thereafter accused had made dirty gestures from the roof of the house intending thereby that she should talk to him on phone and accompany him to some place which she had stated before the Ld.Magistrate in Ex.PW1/C.
9. With regard to her deposition, PW1 was confronted with her previous statement Ex.PW1/A where above mentioned facts were not recorded.
10.PW1 also deposed that she do not know any Pardeep. She deposed that her family members may know Pardeep. PW1 denied that her family is well known to the family of Pardeep and there took a quarrel between accused and Pardeep and just to take revenge, she had got the false case lodged against the accused at the instance of her mother. PW1 denied that no incident on 27.01.2013 took place. PW1 denied that accused did not make any dirty gestures nor he followed her. PW1 denied that prior to 27.01.2013, accused did not make dirty FIR NO: 19/13 5/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 gestures nor he followed her. PW1 denied that accused has been falsely implicated.
11.PW2 is the mother of child victim. PW2 deposed that on 27.01.2013 in the evening at about 4.00 -4.30 a.m., her daughter aged about 14 years, had gone to take milk bottle from nearby shop and within 10-15 minutes, she had come weeping from said shop with milk bottle. PW2 deposed that on inquiry, PW1 Child victim told her that accused used to make obscene gestures in the past and on that day, he had tried to give his mobile number to her daughter which her daughter refused to take. PW2 deposed that thereafter her daughter came to the house and told her the entire incident. PW2 deposed that thereafter, she accompanied her daughter to the place where accused used to play cards and there she found accused and abused him and also beat him up with her slippers. PW2 deposed that thereafter she called the police at 100 number. PW2 deposed that statement of her daughter was recorded by the police at her residence. She further deposed that accused was arrested from his residence vide Ex.PW1/B. PW2 correctly identified the accused who did wrong act with her daughter.
12.In her cross examination, PW2 deposed that prior to 27.01.2013, no complaint was made by child victim against FIR NO: 19/13 6/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 accused to her. PW2 denied that no such incident took place on 27.01.2013 with her daughter. PW2 denied that accused was at his house at the time of incident. PW2 deposed that she knows Pradeep and his family members. PW2 deposed that she does not know whether any quarrel had taken place between accused and Pradeep's family. PW2 denied that accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of Pradeep's family. PW2 denied that accused did not try to give his mobile number to her daughter.
13.PW3 Ms.Umesh, TGT Sanskrit from Sarvodya Kanya Vidhyalay, Kakrola, New Delhi has proved the admission of child victim on 05.05.2010 in 6th standard vide Ex.PW3/A and the date of birth of child victim as 12.08.1999.
14.In her cross examination by counsel for accused, PW3 deposed that the date of birth was mentioned by parents of child victim. She further deposed that in support of date of birth, parents of child victim had supplied her birth certificate. PW3 deposed that she was not present when Ms.Sudesh had made relevant entries in Ex.PW3/A. PW3 deposed that she cannot tell whether it was father or mother of child victim, who had mentioned about the date of birth of child victim. PW3 denied that entry made in Ex.PW3/A is false. PW3 denied that she is deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
FIR NO: 19/13 7/24State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013
15.PW4 W/Ct.Sonu deposed that on 27.01.2013, she was posted in the office of Police Control Room, PHQ. PW4 proved the PCR form Ex.PW4/A.
16.In her cross examination by counsel for accused, PW4 deposed that the name of accused was not disclosed by the caller. She further deposed that she do not know whether information given by the caller was correct or false.
17.PW5 ASI Ramesh Chand deposed that on 27.01.2013, he was posted at P.S Dwarka North as duty officer. PW5 deposed that on that day at about 4.35p.m, he received a call from wireless control room south West Distt., and he reduced the same into writing vide DD no.23A Ex.PW5/A. PW5 deposed that the said call was marked to SI Nanag Ram for taking necessary action. PW5 deposed that on the same day at about 5.45p.m., he received rukka through Head constable Sunil sent by SI Nanag Ram. PW5 proved computer generated copy of FIR vide Ex.PW5/B.
18.PW6 HC Sunil has deposed on the same lines as that of PW10 SI Nanag Ram. PW6 proved the personal search of accused vide Ex.PW6/A. PW6 deposed that from the spot, he alongwith SI Nanag Ram took the accused to DDU Hospital for his FIR NO: 19/13 8/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 medical examination.
19.In his cross examination by accused, PW6 denied that accused was arrested in the police station and not from his house. PW6 further denied that he has conducted the proceedings on the wrong statement of the child victim.
20.PW7 Ms.Ruchika Singla, Ld.MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi proved recording of statement of child victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C.already exhibited as Ex.PW1/C.
21.In her cross examination, PW7 denied that child victim had made a wrong statement before her at the instance of her parents and IO.
22.PW8 HC Brij Mohan deposed that on 27.01.2013, he was posted in the office of Police Control Room, PHQ, New Delhi. PW8 deposed that the information received by PW4 W/Ct.Sonu was pass on to their section by her. Thereafter, he sent the information to District Control Room, SW District. PW8 deposed that one motorcycle rider from Zebra 89 reached at the spot, who informed that one Anil used to pass vulgar comments towards daughter of caller and accused had been apprehended at the spot. PW8 proved portion A to A on Ex.PW8/A. FIR NO: 19/13 9/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013
23.In his cross examination, PW8 denied that the complainant has made a wrong complaint to the PCR.
24.PW9 Constable Jagat deposed that on 27.01.2013, he was posted in the police station Dwarka North and was working as computer operator. PW9 proved the authenticity of the FIR vide certificate Ex.PW9/A.
25.PW10 SI Nanag Ram deposed that on 27.01.2013, he was posted at P.S Dwarka North. PW10 deposed that on that day at about 4.35p.m.on receipt of DD no.28A, he alongwith Pw-6, HC Sunil Kumar reached at house no. B/1/34, Tara Nagar, Kakrola, New Delhi, where complainant child victim and her mother met them. PW10 deposed that he made inquires from child victim. The child victim handed over him a written complaint vide Ex PW1/A. PW10 proved rukka Ex PW10/A. PW10 deposed that he handed over the rukka to HC Sunil for getting the case registered and accordingly, he went to the police station and got the case registered and came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. PW10 deposed that thereafter child victim led them to the house of accused, who was present at that time at his house and he was arrested at the instance of child victim and his personal search was conducted.
FIR NO: 19/13 10/24State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013
26.PW10 deposed that on the next day i.e. 28.01.2013, he went to the Government Sarvodya Kanya Vidhayala, Kakrola and collected the document pertaining to the age of child victim.
27.In his cross examination, PW10 denied that he has conducted unfair investigation at the instance of complainant and her mother. PW10 deposed that he has not recorded the statement of any neighbour/public witness. PW10 denied that complainant had got registered a wrong case against accused.
28.After closure of prosecution evidence, entire incriminating evidence was put to accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused stated that police has arrested him on wrong complaint of child victim. Accused further stated that witnesses have given wrong statements against him at the instance of Pardeep and his family. Accused stated that this is a false case registered against him at the instance of Pardeep and his family as they had always quarreled with them on the issue of filling up of water. Accused further stated that on 27.01.2013, he was in his house for the entire day taking care of his mother, who had been operated upon in one of her eye. Accused stated that he wants to lead defence evidence.
29.In his defence, accused has examined his mother DW1 Smt FIR NO: 19/13 11/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 Chand Kaur. DW1 deposed that on 27.01.2013, accused was with her for entire day as he was looking after her due to her eye operation. DW1 deposed that accused did not leave the house on that day as he was putting eye drops in her eyes at frequent intervals. DW1 proved medical documents vide Ex.DW1/A (colly). DW1 deposed that police had taken away the accused from her house at 4.00p.m to the house of child victim. DW1 further deposed that she also followed the police to the house of child victim, where she had seen, daughter of Pardeep sitting alongwith the child victim. DW1 deposed that thereafter on the instructions of police officials, child victim had written the complaint in her handwriting. DW1 deposed that Pardeep who is her neighbour used to quarrel with them over the issue of taking water from the water tanker and Pardeep is having visiting terms with the family of child victim and therefore, his son was falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of Pardeep and the family of child victim and police.
30.In her cross examination by Ld.Addl.PP for state, DW1 denied that on 27.01.2013, her son accused Anil @ Neela was not with her. DW1 denied that her eye was not operated on or before 27.01.2013 as she is not having any such document to establish this fact that her eye was operated on or before 27.01.2013. DW1 denied that her son was not falsely implicated at the instance of complainant or Pardeep. DW1 FIR NO: 19/13 12/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 denied that she is deposing falsely in order to save accused being his mother.
31.No other witness was examined on behalf of accused in his defence. Accordingly, defence evidence was closed.
32.Thereafter, the matter was posted was final arguments.
33.I have heard Sh.Aditya Kumar, ld.Addl.PP for state and ld.counsel for accused. I have also perused the material available on record.
34. In the present case,accused has been charged for the offence U/s 12 of the Pocso Act for stalking the child victim aged 12 years and for making obscene gestures. The onus was upon the prosecution to prove the aforesaid offence U/s 12 of the Pocso Act.
35.Now to prove the said offence, prosecution has examined child victim aged 12 years as Pw-1, who has deposed on oath that accused was making dirty gestures by showing his mobile phone and pointing fingers at Pw-1 intending that she should call him on his mobile phone for the past two days prior to 27.01.2013 and on 27.01.2013, when the child victim had gone to take bottle of infant milk from the chemist shop, accused had followed her and had asked the child victim to FIR NO: 19/13 13/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 take his mobile phone and talk to him. Even after purchasing of milk from the chemist shop, accused followed the child victim till her house. She has further deposed that after reaching her house, she narrated all the facts to her mother, who had called the police at 100 number. Police reached at the house of child victim and on her instance accused was arrested. Child victim also proved her statement recorded before the Ld. Magistrate U/s 164 Cr.P.C and the statement given to the police vide Ex Pw-1/A. She also identified correctly the accused before the court. The deposition of child victim has been duly corroborated by mother of child victim who has been examined as PW-2 in the present case.
36.Pw-2 mother of child victim has deposed on oath that on hearing the complaint made by child victim to her, she had accompanied the child victim to the place, where accused used to play cards and thereafter she had called the police at 100 number and accused was also arrested from his residence at her instance.
37.The calling of police at 100 number is further proved by Pw-4, Wconstable Sonu, who was posted in Police Control Room at Police Head Quarter as she has deposed on oath that she had received an information on 27.01.2013 at around 4.27p.m, to the effect that one person was harassing one girl by making obscene gestures. Pw-4 also proved PCR form, Ex Pw-4/A. The information received by Pw-4 Wconstable Sonu was FIR NO: 19/13 14/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 further communicated to Pw-8, HC Brij Mohan, who forwarded the said information to District Control Room, SW District. Thereafter one motorcycle rider from Zebra 89 had reached at the spot, who informed PW-8, HC Brij Mohan that accused used to pass her comments and he has been apprehended at the spot.
38.Further the local police reached at the spot have also corroborated regarding meeting of child victim and her mother at their house and thereafter arresting of the accused at the spot in the light of testimony of Pw-6 Hc Sunil and Pw-10, who is IO of the case.
39.Therefore in the light of evidence led on record by prosecution, it is proved that child victim was less then 18 years of age on the date of incident i.e. 27.01.2013 and accused was stalking her and was making gestures towards her.
40.The ld. Defence counsel has highlighted improvements in the cross-examination of Pw-1 to show that she is not a reliable witness. It is submitted that in the cross-examination of Pw-1 child victim, she was confronted with the police complaint Ex Pw-1/A and her statement recorded before Ld. Magistrate U/s 164 Cr.P.C , Ex Pw-1/C and it is established that child victim has made improvements in her statement recorded before this court as certain facts which was deposed to by her is not deposed by her in statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex Pw-1/C or before the police Ex Pw-1/A. FIR NO: 19/13 15/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013
41.Although it is proved that in the complaint made to the police Ex Pw-1/A, it is not stated by the child victim that she had changed the street while returning back from the chemist shop after purchasing milk bottle to avoid the accused but the said fact has been stated before the Ld. Magistrate Ex Pw-1/C and also before this court. The non-stating of this fact before the police is not fatal to the prosecution case as child victim has specifically stated to the police that she was being followed by the accused when she had gone to take milk from from the shop. The explanation made by child victim before ld. Magistrate and before this court as to what extent she was followed is in the opinion of this court not an improvement but explanation of the fact stated before the police Ex Pw-1/A.
42.Similarly although in the police complaint Ex Pw-1/A, child victim did not state specifically that one day prior to 27.01.2013 , accused had asked him to take his mobile phone so that he can talk to her whereas the said fact is mentioned in the statement given before the Ld. Magistrate in Ex Pw-1/C and in her deposition before this court, child victim had reiterated that prior to 27.01.2013, accused used to make dirty gestures by pointing finger on the child victim intending that she should call on his mobile phone is in the opinion of this court not an improvement made by child victim but is specifying what kind of act was being done by the accused prior to 27.01.2013 as in the police complaint Ex Pw-1/A, child victim had specifically FIR NO: 19/13 16/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 stated that for the past 5-6 days, accused was making obscene gestures at her. The explanation of obscene gestures of one day prior to 27.01.2013 in the statement before the Ld. Magistrate, U/s 164 Cr.P.C vide Ex Pw-1/C and before this court is not an improvement but is explanation of facts which was already stated to the police in the complaint Ex PW-1/A. Therefore there is no improvement made by the child victim which makes her testimony unbelievable.
43.From the evidence led on record by the prosecution, it is proved that prior to 27.01.2013, accused used to make obscene gestures at the child victim by asking her to talk to him and on 27.01.2013, accused had followed child victim to the chemist shop and back to her house. Now the question arises whether the act of making gestures or following the child victim on 27.01.2013 to the chemist shop falls within the definition of sexual harassment or not?
44.As per section 11 of POCSO Act, A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,-
(i) Utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or
(ii)makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or FIR NO: 19/13 17/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013
(iii)shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purpose; or
(iv)repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or
(v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic, film or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or
(vi)entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives gratification therefor.
45.In the present case, Section 11 (i) and (iv) Pocso Act are applicable to the act of the accused. The prosecution was also required to prove that act mentioned in Section 11 (i) & (iv) of Pocso Act were done by the accused with sexual intent. The prosecution has discharged the onus of proving the sexual intent as there is presumption in Section 30 of the POCSO Act with regard to sexual intention of the accused. The said presumption is rebuttable one and it was for the accused to prove that he had no sexual intent when he was making gestures or following the child victim.
46.In order to rebut the presumption, accused had taken a defence by suggesting to the Pw-1 child victim and Pw-2 her mother in cross-examination that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of Pardeep and his family members due to dispute which had taken place between the accused and the FIR NO: 19/13 18/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 family of Pardeep. The said suggestion was denied by the child victim and her mother. It is also the defence of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C that he has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of Pardeep as they used to quarrel with him at water tanker on the issue of filling of water.
47.The onus was upon the accused to prove his defence but accused did not examine any of his neighbour to prove that he was having some dispute with Pardeep and his family on the issue of drinking water. On the contrary, accused had examined his mother Smt Chand Kaur as DW-1, who has deposed on oath that on 27.01.2013, accused was with her for the entire day as he was looking after her due to eye operation. DW-1 has also filed her medical document Ex DW-1/A(colly.).
48.However in her cross-examination by Ld. Addl.PP for state, DW-1 deposed that she has not filed any document to show that her eye was operated on or before 27.01.2013. Since DW-1 has admitted in her cross-examination that document filed on record Ex DW-1/A do not establish that her eye was operated on 27.01.2013 or before, therefore accused has failed to establish his defence that he was at his house on 27.01.2013 looking after his mother due to her eye operation. Even this defence of the accused that he remained in his house and had no occasion to follow the child victim on the said date is nothing but an after thought as in the cross-
FIR NO: 19/13 19/24State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 examination of Pw-1 child victim and her mother Pw-2 or any other prosecution witness, no such suggestion was given by the accused that he remained in his house on 27.01.2013 due to her mother's eye operation. Therefore this defence has been taken up at the belated stage U/s 313 Cr.P.C which makes it highly unbelievable.
49.Lastly the defence of the accused that he was at his house on 27.01.2013 is demolished by the evidence of Pw-8 HC Brij Mohan, who has deposed on oath that he was informed that accused Anil have been apprehended on the spot which fact is recorded in the PCR form vide Ex Pw-8/A.
50.In the light of above discussion, accused has failed to rebut the presumption U/s 30 of the POCSO Act. Prosecution has been able to prove its case that accused had sexually harassed the child victim by making obscene gestures at her and by following her on 27.01.2013. Accordingly accused is convicted of the offence U/s 12 of the Pocso Act. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence on 28.08.2014 at 2.00p.m.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull) Dated: 26.08.2014 ASJ-01/Dwarka Courts New Delhi FIR NO: 19/13 20/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI SC NO: 05/02/13 In the matter of :--
State Vs. Anil @ Neele S/o Bhim Singh R/o B-2, Tara Nagar, Kakrola New Delhi ....Convict 03.09.2014 ORDER ON SENTENCE Pr: Sh.Aditya Kumar, Ld.Addl.PP for state.
Convict in person with ld.counsel Sh. Anil Sharma. Child victim in person alongwith her mother. Probation report received from the Probation Officer, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Same perused. The Probation Officer has recommended giving of benefit of probation to convict on the ground that he is married and having two minor children and widowed mother to take care of her and convict is the only earning member of his family, who is earning his livelihood by running his own E-rickshaw. It is also reported that this is the first offence of the convict and behaviour of FIR NO: 19/13 21/24 State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 the convict in the society is good and sending him to jail will effect his family.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard and record perused.
Ld. Addl.PP for state submits that convict be given maximum punishment as per Section 12 of Pocso Act. It is further submitted that a crime against girls in the society are on the rise and to send a strong message to the society, convict deserves to be dealt with strictly to provide a deterrent.
On the other hand, ld.Counsel for convict makes a prayer for taking a lenient view. In support of his prayer for lenient view, it is submitted by Ld.counsel that convict is a young boy of age 28 years It is further submitted that convict is the only male earning member of his family. It is further submitted that mother of convict is a widow lady and his brother is handicap and is required to be looked after them. It is further submitted that this is the first offence of the convict and therefore he deserves to be treated leniently. Lastly, it is submitted that convict should be given a chance for reformation by giving him benefit of probation as recommended by the Probation Officer, Dwarka. Accordingly, a prayer for taking a lenient view is made.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the Ld.APP and of counsel for convict. It is an admitted case that this is the first offence of the convict u/s 12 of Pocso Act which is punishable with maximum imprisonment for three years with fine.
FIR NO: 19/13 22/24State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 Convict is stated to be the sole bread earner of his family having responsibility of two minor children, handicapped brother and old aged widow mother. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the fact that this is the first offence of the convict, that offence U/s 12 of POCSO Act is punishable with maximum three years imprisonment, to the economic condition of the convict's family and recommendation for probation made by the Probation Officer, Dwarka therefore, convict deserves to be given a chance for reformation by taking a lenient view. Accordingly, the application of convict is allowed. Instead of sentencing the convict to punishment, the convict is given the benefit of probation and is directed to file a personal bond of good behaviour and conduct in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months with the condition that he shall remain under the supervision of Probation Officer, Dwarka Court for six months and shall report before the Probation Officer once every month and shall not commit similar offence during this period of six months and if any such offence is brought to the notice of this court during this period of six months, then this court will be at liberty to impose appropriate sentence upon the convict u/s 12 of Pocso Act.
Further convict shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the child victim for the harassment caused to her by him. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- paid to the child victim against receipt.
Copy of order be also sent to Probation Officer, Dwarka Court for compliance.
FIR NO: 19/13 23/24State Vs. Anil @ Neele FIR NO: 19/2013 A copy of judgment and copy of order on sentence be supplied free of cost to convict against receipt.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull) Dated: 03.09.2014 ASJ-01/Dwarka Courts New Delhi FIR NO: 19/13 24/24