Delhi District Court
Sc No: 17/14 State vs . Prakash & Ors. on 10 February, 2016
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, NORTH
ROHINI, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 17/14
FIR No. 233/13
Police Station Alipur
Under Section 341/509/34 IPC &
12 POCSO Act
ID No. 02404R0-37212014
State
Versus
1. Prakash
S/o Sh. Vijay
R/o R/o C-5/19, Swarna Jyanti Vihar, Delhi
2. Mahender Singh
S/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
R/o R/o C-5/41, Swarna Jyanti Vihar,
Narela, Delhi.
3. Naushad
S/o Sh. Aslam
R/o R/o C-4/106, Swarna Jyanti Vihar,
Narela, Delhi.
Judgment 1 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
4. Sanjay
S/o Sh. Dinesh
R/o E-5/79, Swarna Jyanti Vihar,
Narela, Delhi. ......Accused Persons
Date of institution 17.01.2014
Judgment reserved on 15.01.2016
Judgment Pronounced on 03/02/2016
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons are facing trial in present case for wrongfully restraining the victims 'S' & 'K' and insulting their modesty by harassing them.
2. FIR in was registered on the written complaint of victim 'S' who alleged that on 19.05.2013 at about 9.40 AM, when she along with her friend 'K' were returning from tuition and reached near Sarvodya Vidyalaya, 4-5 boys were standing there.
Judgment 2 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
Upon seeing them, those boys blocked their way and started misbehaving with them by using filthy language. She prayed for a legal action against them.
3. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and charge-sheeted. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 341/509/34 IPC & Section 12 POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined 7 witnesses.
5. PW1 is complainant/ victim. She deposed that on the date of incident at about 9.30 AM, when she along with her friend 'K' were returning home after taking tuition on their bicycles. Six boys who were coming from behind passed some comments in order to harass them. Meanwhile, brother of 'K' came there and Judgment 3 of 12 SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
objected to the comments passed by accused persons. Said boys threatened him to go away otherwise they would beat him. Brother of 'K' then made a call to his father. On this, his father came at the spot and tried to make the accused persons understand but they did not accept their mistake. Then, father of K reported the matter to the police. Police came and recorded the statement of victims as Ex. PW1/A. Out of six, four boys were apprehended by the police and two managed to flee away from the spot. She deposed that her statement was recorded by Ld MM as Ex. PW1/B. She identified all the four accused persons.
6. PW2 'K' friend of complainant also deposed that on 19.05.2013, when she along with complainant were returning home on their bicycle, six boys called them from behind and attempted to stop them. They harassed them in a loud voice. victims asked her to ride the bicycle speedily as she was afraid due to deserted area. Meanwhile, her brother along with his friend came there. She told the incident to his brother and then her brother asked those boys the Judgment 4 of 12 SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
reason of their behavior. Those boys started misbehaving with her brother. Then her brother called his father. His father came on the spot and stopped the boys. Many people gathered at the spot who apprehended four boys. Matter was reported to the police. She proved her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW2/A.
7. PW3 father of victim 'S' deposed that on the date of incident when he was returning back from his office, he received a call from his wife that somebody had misbehaved with his daughter and her friend. He rushed back home and went to the spot where he found that four accused persons were apprehended by the police. Father of his daughter's friend was also present at the spot. He also identified all the accused.
8. PW4 father of victim 'K', deposed that on the date of incident at about 11am-12 noon, he was informed that when his son reached near the school, he saw that 4-5 boys were misbehaving with his daughter and her friend. He reached at the spot and his Judgment 5 of 12 SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
daughter narrated the incident to him. When he tried reason out from accused persons as to why they were misbehaving his daughter and her friend, they started abusing and quarreling with him. He reported the matter to police. He also identified the accused persons.
9. PW5 HC Shivender Pal proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW5/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW5/B.
10. PW6 Sachin Gupta, Ld. MM proved the statements of victims recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW1/B & PW2/A respectively.
11. PW7 HC Mukesh Kumar along with Ct. Komal reached at the spot. He recorded the statement of complainant and prepared rukka as Ex. PW7/A. He arrested, took personal search of accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements vide memos Ex. PW7/B-M. He prepared site plan Ex. PW7/N at the Judgment 6 of 12 SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
instance of victims. He got recorded the statements of victims u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet in the Court.
12. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 03.12.2015, to which they stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
13. Accused Naushad and Mahender Singh submitted that on the date of incident, they were going to their job but neither they passed any comment on victims nor they knew victims prior to the incident.
14. Ld. Counsel for accused persons have argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. It is submitted that accused persons had no intention to harass the victims nor there is any evidence to prove so. It is argued that neither the complainant Judgment 7 of 12 SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
nor her friend have deposed that they were restrained by the accused persons and in these facts accused persons cannot be held guilty of harassing them.
15. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the State that all the witnesses have supported prosecution version. Their testimonies are trustworthy and reliable and the same clearly establishes the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that the accused persons have been duly identified by the complainant, her friend and their fathers. Hence, the prosecution case has been proved against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
16. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for accused persons as well as the Ld. Addl. PP and perused the record.
17. Age of victims: Although prosecution has not led any evidence to prove the age of the complainant & her friend but in their deposition it has come they were aged about 17 years & 16 Judgment 8 of 12 SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
years respectively at the time of recording of their evidence. As per their testimony, incident took place about 1½ years prior to recording of their evidence. Thus, both were much below the age of 18 years at the time incident and thus, were"child" within the meaning of POCSO Act.
18. Testimony of victims: Victims (PWs 1 & 2) are School going girls and both of them in unison have deposed that when they were returning and had reached near the school, accused persons were standing there. After seeing them they started passing comments and blocked their way. They tried to escape from there but the accused persons started following them.
19. In respect of the comments passed by the accused persons, PW1 during her cross-examination categorically deposed that they stated " Ruk Jao, Hum Bhi Aa Rahe Hain" and they were speaking in indecent language.
Judgment 9 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
20. No material contradiction has come in cross- examination of PWs 1 & 2 to disbelieve their deposition. Both of them are strangers to accused persons and no motive has been attributed to them for making such allegations against the accused. More so, accused in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C also have not denied their presence at the spot.
21. Accused persons have been duly identified by the victims and their fathers. It is also in evidence that the father of both the victims also came at the spot and try to make the accused persons understand but they did not mend their ways.
22. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that even for the sake of arguments it is presumed that some comments were passed by the accused persons but there is no evidence on record that those comments were obscene. As stated above, it is in testimony of PW1 that accused persons uttered " Ruk Judgment 10 of 12 SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
Jao, Hum Bhi Aa Rahe Hain". It is in the testimony of the victims that accused persons were using indecent language. Victims fell the language used by accused persons as indecent and offending. Thus, the utterances by the accused persons made against the victims are obscene intending to insult their modesty specially when the comments passed upon them caused fear in their mind. In these facts, there is convincing evidence on record that the accused persons passed obscene comments on the victims, however, there is no evidence that victims were wrongfully restrained by the accused persons.
23. Conclusion: From discussions herein above, it emerges that:
i) Testimonies of PW1 & 2 establishes that accused persons obscene passed comments on them.
ii ) Accused persons have been duly identified by the witnesses.
iii) Father of both the victims corroborated chain of events.
iv) Accused persons failed to establish any defence.
Judgment 11 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
24. Accordingly, it is held that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are trustworthy and reliable in respect of the incident of molesting on the victims by the accused persons. Allegations also found corroboration from the deposition of their fathers. Allegations against the accused persons of harassing and using indecent language against them with intent to insult their modesty stands proved. Thus, the accused persons stand convicted for the offence punishable U/s 509/34 IPC and 12 POCSO Act.
25. Matter be listed for hearing arguments on quantum of sentence on 10.02.2016 Announced in open Court on Day of 3rdDay of February, 2016.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
Judgment 12 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, NORTH
ROHINI, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 17/14
FIR No. 233/13
Police Station Alipur
Under Section 341/509/34 IPC &
12 POCSO Act
ID No. 02404R0-37212014
State
Versus
1. Prakash
S/o Sh. Vijay
R/o R/o C-5/19, Swarna Jyanti Vihar, Delhi
2. Mahender Singh S/o Late Sh. Mange Ram R/o R/o C-5/41, Swarna Jyanti Vihar, Narela, Delhi.
3. Naushad S/o Sh. Aslam R/o R/o C-4/106, Swarna Jyanti Vihar, Narela, Delhi.
Judgment 13 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
4. Sanjay
S/o Sh. Dinesh
R/o E-5/79, Swarna Jyanti Vihar,
Narela, Delhi.
...... Convicts
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Accused Prakash, Mahender Singh, Naushad & Sanjay have been convicted U/s 341/509/34 IPC & Section 12 POCSO Act read with Section 34 IPC. I have heard arguments on the point of sentence advanced at Bar by the Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State and Ld. counsel for the convicts.
2. The learned Addl. PP has very vehemently argued that the offence committed by the convicts in this matter are of highly derogatory in nature. The child victims were subjected to molested by the convicts. It is further argued that the incestuous crimes in our society are presently on rise, which substantially Judgment 14 of 12 SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
hamper the mental and physical development of children. POCSO was enacted by the Parliament bearing in mind that the offenders under the said Act shall be dealt with with heavy hand, therefore, stringent punishment has been provided for in the said Act. The Learned Addl. PP has prayed for the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 12 of the Act in the matter, so that the same may act as deterrent for other impending offenders.
3. Per contra, the learned defence counsel has submitted that convicts are young persons. They have already undergone about 15 days imprisonment as under-trial in this case, during which period, their conduct was never questioned by the Jail authorities. In the end, it is submitted that the convicts are the first time offender as such benefit of Probation of Offender's Act be granted to the convicts.
Judgment 15 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Bar by both the sides and to the facts and circumstances of the case in totality.
5. On the basis of the submissions made by the Ld. Defense counsel the report of Probation Officer has been called in respect of the convicts. I have on record the report made by the Probation Officer, District & Sessions Court, Rohini.
6. Detailed report of the District Probation Officer, in respect of convict Prakash shows that the convict was below 21 years of age on the date of commission of offence. At present he is employed in a private service on a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/-. Convict comes from a lower middle class but respectable family. His father is beldaar. Report sets out the background of the family of which the convict is a member. As per the report there is full scope of improvement in his behavior and there is no other criminal case pending against him.
Judgment 16 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
7. Report in respect of convict Mahender Singh shows that the convict was merely 21 years of age on the date of commission of offence. At present he is employed in a private service on a monthly salary of Rs. 8000/-. The convict comes from a lower middle class and is supporting his family. Report sets out the background of the family of which the convict is a member. No defect in character of his family is reported and he is highly motivated to lead life of responsible citizen.
8. Detailed report in respect of convict Naushad shows that the convict was merely 20 years of age on the date of commission of offence. At present he is employed in a private service on a monthly salary of Rs. 7000/-. Convict is living in a joint family and he is bread earner for his family. As per report there is scope of improvement in his behavior and he fulfills all terms and conditions of probation.
Judgment 17 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
9. The detailed report of the District Probation Officer, in respect of convict Sanjay shows that the convict was merely 20 years of age on the date of commission of offence. There is no pending case against him and the family of accused has full acceptance for him. There is scope of improvement in his behavior as well as in way of his social life.
10. The question now is whether the convicts should be condemned to three years jail life to make them a hardened criminal or they can be reclaimed. Convicts do not have any past criminal record and at present they are supporting their respective families. Thus, I am satisfied with the recommendations made by the Probation Officer and in my considered opinion by granting the benefit of probation to the convicts will help them to reunite in the social fabric and they can be proved to be an asset for their families.
Judgment 18 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
11. Accordingly, I grant the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and release the convicts on probation on furnishing of a personal bond with surety of like amount for keeping good behavior and peace in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each for period of one year.
12. The concerned Probation Officers must keep supervision over the convicts.
13. Compensation: Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again observed that that subordinate Courts trying the offences of sexual assault have the jurisdiction to award the compensation to the victims being an offence against the basic human right and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
14. The concept of welfare and well being of children is basic for any civilized society and this has a direct bearing on the state of health and well being of the entire community, its growth Judgment 19 of 12 SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
and development. It has been time and again emphasized in legislation, international declarations as well as the judicial pronouncements that the Children are a "supremely important national asset" and the future well being of the nation depends on how its children grow and develop. Section 33(8) POCSO Act, also mandates that in addition to the punishment to the accused, the victim be granted compensation for physical and mental trauma caused to him and for the rehabilitation of the victim.
15. Therefore, in order to provide Restorative and Compensatory Justice to the victims, Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) is granted to the each of the Victims as compensation. Learned Secretary, D.S.L.S.A, North District, New Delhi shall ensure that the said amount is given to the parents of the victim within one month on receipt of this order and shall further ensure that the said amount is disbursed in such a manner that the same be used for welfare and rehabilitation of the victim.
Judgment 20 of 12
SC No: 17/14 State Vs. Prakash & Ors.
16. A copy of this order along with the particulars of the victims be sent to learned Secretary, D.L.S.A, North District., Rohini Courts, Delhi for necessary compliance.
17. Convicts are informed of his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that if they cannot afford to engage an Advocate, they can approach Secretary, Delhi High Court, Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyer Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi.
18. A copy of judgment and copy of order on sentence be supplied free of cost to convicts.
File be consigned to record room.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
10.02.2016
Judgment 21 of 12