Delhi District Court
Sc No.7/2014: Fir No.453/2014: Ps ... vs Aalam Dod: 20.04.2015 on 7 May, 2015
SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01:
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
(Sessions Case No.7/2014)
Unique Identification No.: 02404R0006332014
State V/s Aalam
FIR No. : 453/2013
U/s : 354 IPC r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012
P.S. : Shalimar Bagh
State V/s Aalam,
S/o Shri Badruddin,
R/o Jhuggi No.124, Gali No.1, Lohiya Camp, Haiderpur,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
Date of institution of case : 04.01.2014
Date of arguments : 07.04.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.04.2015
J U D G M E N T:
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The facts of the case, as borne out from the record are that on 06.11.2013, at about 6.25 PM, an information through PCR was received in PS Shalimar Bagh in respect of one person having molested eight years old child.
The said information was reduced into writing in the PS as DD No.38A. In due course the investigation w.r.t the said DD was handed over to IO, SI Sarita, who alongwith W/Ct.Suman and Ct.Suresh went to the site, i.e park, near Jhuggi No.125, Lohia Camp, Haiderpur, where she found victim children U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 1 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 namely M, aged about 7 years, child T, aged about 4 years, their parents and relative Shri Pradeep. The mother of the victim children communicated to the IO that their neighbourer Alam had done "ched chad" with the victim children. At the spot, the IO made enquiries from children M and T. Thereafter, IO took the children to BJRM Hospital, where their medical examination was got conducted. Considering the sensitivity of the matter, the IO also called a counsellor from an NGO. The counsellor counselled the children in the hospital itself, after their medical examination. Thereafter, the IO recorded the statement of child M and returned to the spot with both the children, their parents and relative Shri Pradeep. In the hospital itself, the IO had written tehrir and handed over the same to Ct.Suresh. Ct.Suresh went to the PS and got the case FIR in the matter registered and reached at the spot alongwith second IO, SI Rajinder as well as original tehrir and computerized copy of FIR. At the spot, IO SI Sarita handed over the MLCs of both the children to second IO. At the spot, the second IO prepared site plan of the place. The accused was arrested and his medical examination was also got conducted by the second IO through Ct.Lakhan Singh. Thereafter, the IO got recorded the statements of victim children U/s 164 Cr.P.C as well as collected age proof of children. After completion of investigation, chargesheet in the matter was filed.
2. After filing of the chargesheet in the matter, copy thereof alongwith documents was supplied to the accused and after hearing U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 2 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 arguments on the point of charge, vide order dated 13.02.2014, charges U/s 9
(m) of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), punishable U/s 10 of Act r/w Section 354 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 18 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 present case at the instance of mother of children M and T, however, he did not lead any evidence in defence.
4. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by Ld.Addl.PP on behalf of State and Shri Rajnish Kumar Antil, learned Amicus Curiae 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, which broadly can be broadly classified into the following categories:
(a) The evidence of child victims M and T and their family members, including the eye witness:
(b) Evidence w.r.t the age of child victims M and T;
(c) Evidence of formal witnesses;
(d) Medical Evidence and;
(e) Evidence of police officials of investigation.
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 3 of 22
SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015
The evidence of child victims M and T and their family members, including the eye witness:
5. PW3 Smt.Reena, the mother of both the child victims in her evidence has deposed that on the date of incident at about 6.00 PM she was present in her house alongwith her husband and other family members, when at about 6.00 PM, her neighbourer namely Shri Pardeep informed her that accused Alam had done "galat kaam" with her daughters namely M and T. In the meantime, children M and T also reached at house. Child M told her that accused had made her to sit in his lap by folding her legs which caused pain to her, as a consequence whereof she screamed and thereafter the accused left her. Subsequently, he took child T in his lap and laid his hand on her private part. After hearing all this, she immediately rushed to the house of accused and scolded him. He started apologizing. In the meantime, public persons from the neighbourhood gathered at the spot and gave beatings to the accused. The police was called. The police took both the children to hospital where their medical examination took place.
She was thoroughly cross examined by the defence, wherein she stated that she had shifted to her residence only few days prior to the date of incident, whereas the accused had already been residing in the vicinity. She further deposed that PW Pradeep had witnessed the incident from the roof of his house. She, however, admitted that she herself did not witness the incident.
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 4 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015
6. PW4, child victim M, in her evidence has stated as under:
xxxxx Q. Batao beta kya hua tha ?
Ans. Ek uncle ne tang kiya tha.
Q. Kya tang kiya tha ?
Ans. Jab mein aur meri chhoti behein park me khambe ke paas pudak rahe the (jump kar rahe the), tab ek uncle aaye.
Q. Phir kya hua ?
Ans. Uncle ne mere pair pichhe mod diye aur mujhe yaha bithaya (the witness has pointed towards her lap to state that the man had made her sit on his lap).
Q. Uss samay apka muah kaha tha ?
Ans. Mera muah dosto ki taraf tha aur pair uncle ki taraf the, jo unhone pichhe mod diye the (the witness has pointed towards her back to show the direction in which accused had twisted her legs). Q. Phir kya hua ?
Ans. Mein jor se chilayi toh uncle ne mujhe uttar diya.
Q. Phir kya hua ?
Ans. Meri chhoti behein T ko gaud me bitha liya.
Uski peeth uncle ki taraf thi phir unhone uske nichhe hath lagaya (the witness has pointed towards her anal region to show the place where the accused has touched her younger sister).
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 5 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 Q. Phir kya hua ?
Ans. Meri behein ne bhi chilaya phir unhone humme chhod diya. Humne ghar aa kar apni mummy ko bata diya.
Q. Kya apne police aunty ko woh sab bataya tha jo aaj yaha par bataya hai ?
Ans. Ha. (The witness has seen her name written on complaint already exhibited as Ex.PW3/C and identifies her name thereupon).
Q. Kya aap pehle bhi Court me aaye the ?
Ans. Ha. Maine ek uncle se sab baat batayi thi.
(The statement of witness u/s.164 CrPC has been recorded by Sh.Sumedh Kumar Sethi, learned MM.) Q. Kya aap uss uncle ko pehchan sakte ho ?
Ans.Ha.
The witness has correctly identified the accused, who is present in the Court, through the design in the wooden partition.
XXXXX By Ms. Urmila Yadav, LAC for accused.
Q. Kya aaj apko bayan daine se pehle bahar police aunty ne yah apke mummy papa ne bataya tha ki apko kya bolna hai ?
Ans.Nahi maine sab sach sach bataya hai.
xxxxx
7. PW5, Shri Sonu, the father of child victims M and T in his examination deposed on the lines of PW3. In his crossexamination, he U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 6 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 denied the suggestion that there was an enmity between him and the parents of accused.
8. CW1, child victim T was not cited as a witness by the prosecution, but this court deemed her to be an important witness and as such, summoned her as court witness. She in her evidence has deposed as under:
xxxxx Q. Batao beta kya hua tha ?
Ans. Police aayi thi aur uncle ko le gayi thi. Q. Uncle ne kya kiya tha ?
Ans. Uncle ne ungali dali thi.
Q. Kaha ungali dali thi ?
Ans Yaha. (The witness has pointed with her finger at her vaginal region).
Q. Aur kya kiya tha ?
Ans.Muskan ko sula rahe the (Muskan is elder sister of the witness).
Q. Aisa kaha par kiya tha ?
Ans. Park me kiya tha.
Q. Aap park me kya kar rahe the ?
Ans. Mein park me Muskan ke sath khelne gayi thi. Q. Aur kya hua tha ?
Ans. Kuch bhi nahi.
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 7 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 XXXX By learned Additional PP for the State. Nil. Opportunity given.
XXXX By Ms. Urmila Yadav, LAC for accused. Q. Kya aaj apko bayan daine se pehle bahar police aunty ne yah apke mummy papa ne bataya tha ki apko kya bolna hai ?
Ans. Nahi maine sab sach sach bataya hai.
xxxxx
9. PW12, Shri Pradeep, son of Shri Jagdish Balmiki, in his evidence has stated that on the date of incident, at about 6.00 PM, he was sitting on the roof of his house and was facing towards the park where child M and child T were playing with their friends At that time, he saw accused lifting child M with wrong intention. Child M ran away after he let her go. Thereafter, he lifted child T in such a manner that she was facing the pole and had her back towards the accused. The accused put his hand in the underwear and pant of child T and uttered words, "dekhun ladka hai ki ladki". After seeing this, he immediately ran towards the accused and the accused told him that he was just playing with the children. He further deposed that child T told him that accused was doing "galat baat" with her. Thereafter, he went to the house of both the children and communicated the incident to their parents, who informed the police. The children were taken to hospital by the police and after coming back from the hospital, the site plan in the matter was prepared by the police at his instance.
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 8 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 In his crossexamination, he was thoroughly confronted with his statement recorded by the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C for he having stated therein that he had seen the accused making to sit child M in his lap and thereafter repeated the same with child T and the specific words, "dekhun ladka hai ki ladki" not having been stated by him therein.
Evidence w.r.t the age of child victims M and T:
10. The defence has not disputed the age of child victims. PW1 Smt.Promila Sharma, Vice Principal, MCD Pratibha Balika Vidyalaya, Haiderpur has produced the relevant documents from the school record, showing the DOB of the child victim M to be 11.10.2006, thereby showing that as on the date of incident, child victim M was around 07 years of age.
11. Although, the documents w.r.t the age of child victim T have not been produced on record, but the accused has not disputed her age to be 4 years as on the date of incident. The prosecuting agency probably did not collect the documents w.r.t her age because of her tender age and she having not been cited as a witness, but was ultimately examined in this case as a Court Witness.
Evidence of formal witnesses:
12. PW2, HC Pawan Kumar was lying posted as Duty Officer at the relevant time in PS Shalimar Bagh and he has proved the recording of DD No.38A as Ex.PW2/A and the FIR Ex.PW2/C in the matter. U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 9 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015
13. PW8, SI Manish Kumar in his evidence has stated that he had got recorded the statement of child M U/s 164 Cr.P.C on 07.11.2013.
14. PW9, HC Dharamvir from PCR, in his evidence has stated that after receiving the information he reached at the spot in the PCR van and found first IO WSI Sarita and W/Ct.Suman at the spot.
15. PW14, Ct.Lakhan Singh in his evidence has stated that after arrest of the accused he had taken him to BJRM Hospital, got his MLC prepared, collected the exhibits and handed over the same to second IO, SI Vijender Singh.
16. PW19, Shri Sumedh Kumar Sethi, Ld.MM in his evidence has proved the statement of child M recorded by him U/s 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW19/A. Medical Evidence:
17. The medical evidence in the matter is not very significant as in this case, admittedly there was no penetrative intervention with the private parts of the child victims. For the sake of record, the prosecution has examined PW7 Dr.Avinish Tripathi, who has proved the MLC of child victim M as Ex.PW3/A, and of that of child victim T as Ex.PW3/B. In both the MLCs, no fresh external injuries were seen on the person of both the child U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 10 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 victims. PW16 Dr.R.S Mishra, has proved the MLC of accused as Ex.PW7/A and PW17 Dr.Narender has deposed about his opinion about the potency of the accused.
Evidence of police officials of investigation:
18. PW6, L/Ct.Suman in her evidence has deposed that she alongwith IO PW13 SI Sarita went to the spot pursuant to receipt of a copy of DD No.38A (Ex.PW2/A). From the spot, the child victims M and T were taken to BJRM Hospital. After the medical examination of the child victims, the IO called Ms.Taruna, a counsellor from an NGO and got the children counselled and thereafter recorded the statement of child victim M, prepared rukka and got the case FIR registered and the further investigation in the matter was entrusted to PW15 SI Rajinder Singh.
19. PW13 WSI Sarita, the first IO of the case has deposed on the lines of PW6, whereas PW15 SI Rajinder Singh in his evidence has deposed that he prepared site plan Ex.PW15/A at the instance of eye witness PW12, arrested the accused, got him medically examined, got recorded the statement of child victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C, collected the age documents of child victim M and after concluding the evidence filed the chargesheet in the matter. .
20. In his crossexamination, PW15 has admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of PW12 Shri Pradeep on site plan. He also admitted U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 11 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 that during the course of investigation, he observed that there was water dispute between the father of child victims and the parents of accused,however, he denied the suggestion that merely on account of aforesaid dispute, the accused was falsely implicated by the father of child victims in the present case.
21. I have heard final arguments advanced at bar by Ld.Addl. PP for the State and perused the written arguments placed on record by the learned defence counsel Shri Rajnish Antil, advocate.
22. The learned Addl. PP has very vehemently argued that the evidence of both the child victims, i.e PW4 and CW1 is consistent. PW4 has categorically and consistently deposed in Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW19/A and her deposition about the physical act of the accused with herself as well as as with her sister CW1. CW1 has corroborated the version of PW4. It is further argued that the accused was required to prove his defence of false implication by the father of child victims on account of previous enmity through positive evidence in terms of Section 30 of POCSO Act, 2012, which he has miserably failed and as such,the prosecution has been able to sustain charges against the accused, whereas the accused has miserably failed in proving his defence beyond reasonable doubt.
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 12 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015
23. Per contra, the learned defence counsel in the written arguments has stated that PW12 is an introduced witness and no explicit reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It is next argued that the police has not examined any independent witness to lend authenticity to the prosecution story and as such, has miserably failed in proving the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
24. Before, adverting to the adjudication upon the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to set out the paradigm shift in POCSO which is a special legislation. In POCSO, by virtue of Section 29 and 30, there is a presumption of commission of offence by the accused for offences U/s 3, 5, 7 and 9 and in any prosecution for any of the offences under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state. The accused is required to prove that no such mental state w.r.t the act charged as an offence existed beyond reasonable doubt and not merely establishing its existence through preponderance of probability.
25. Except for a bleak admission in the evidence of PW15, there is no evidence about the defence of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the matter by the parents of child victims on account of the previous enmity. Therefore, the accused has clearly failed to establish his defence beyond reasonable doubt.
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 13 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015
26. Now, let us analyze as to whether the ingredients of offence U/s 9 POCSO have been established in the matter or not. Section 9 depicts aggravated sexual assault, clause (m) thereof is reproduced as under:
xxxxx whoever, commits sexual assault on a child below 12 years. xxxxx Words "sexual assault" has been defined in Section 7, which is reproduced as under:
xxxxx
7. Sexual AssaultWhoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.
xxxxx
27. Now, let us see as to whether the evidence of child victims set out the commission of aggravated form of sexual assault upon them by the accused, as contemplated U/s 9. Admittedly, both the child victims are less than 12 years and as such, one of the essential ingredients is duly satisfying. Both the child victims in their evidence have categorically proved the physical contact made by the accused with them. The very nature of the physical contact proved by both the child victims unerringly establishes that the same was with sexual intent. Child T has categorically proved in her evidence U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 14 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 about the physical contact with her with sexual intent by the accused, the relevant extract whereof has been set out in the preceding paragraphs. The evidence of both the child victims is clear, consistent and believable. No doubt, that the evidence of a child victim of a tender age has to be considered with great caution and if after consideration of evidence of child victim, the court comes to the conclusion that the same has tinge of truth and is unblemished and further chances of the child having been tutored are negligible, then the conviction can be based solely upon the evidence of child victim.
28. With a view to appreciate the argument of the learned defence counsel that PW12 is an introduced witness and no explicit reliance on his evidence can be put, I have considered his entire evidence. I find that this witness, though a natural witness has made large scale improvements in his evidence, over and above his statement recorded by the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Even if, his statement is discarded from the zone of consideration, the ingredients of the offence for which the accused stands charged in this matter are getting established without any reasonable doubt through the evidence of other witnesses.
29. I agree with the argument of Ld.Addl.PP that the medical evidence in the matter is of little relevance in this case as this is not a case which involves penetrative sexual assault.
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 15 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015
30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, particularly the evidence of both the child victims, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish charges against the accused in the matter. The accused accordingly stands convicted for offence punishable U/s 10 POCSO Act, 2012. In this view of the matter, I need not go into the alternate charge framed U/s 354 IPC.
31. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.
32. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence on 22.04.2015.
Announced in the open Court (Vinod Yadav)
on 20.04.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge01 (NorthWest):
Rohini District Courts: New Delhi
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 16 of 22
SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ASJ01
(N/W): ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 7/2014)
Unique Identification No.: 02404R0006332014 State V/s Aalam FIR No. : 453/2013 U/s : 354 IPC r/w Section 10 of POCSO Act P.S. : Shalimar Bagh State V/s Aalam S/o Shri Badruddin, R/o Jhuggie No. 124, Gali no. 1, Lohiya Camp, Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi ....Convict 07.05.2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE Pr: Ld.Addl.PP for state.
Convict produced from J.C with Sh. Ishwar Singh, Ld. proxy counsel appointed by bar.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE In the present case, the convict - Aalam has been convicted u/s 10 of POCSO Act, 2012.
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 17 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 I have heard arguments on the point of sentence advanced at Bar by the Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State and Sh. Ishwar Singh, ld. Proxy counsel, for the convict.
2. The learned Addl. PP has very vehemently argued that the sexual assaults upon the minor children are on rise in the society, whereby the mental and physical development of the children gets affected substantially. It is specifically emphasized that the child victims in this case were of tender age i.e. aged about 4 years and 7 years, when they were sexually assaulted by the convict. The learned Addl. PP has prayed for the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 10 of the Act to the convict, so that the same may act as a deterrent for other impending offenders.
3. Per contra, the learned proxy counsel for the convict has argued that convict is a young aged person having age of 25 year and is having responsibility of maintaining his old aged parents and younger brothers and one sister. It is further submitted that father of the convict remains at home due to poor eyesight and the convict is the sole bread earner of his family. It is further submitted that at the time of incident, the convict was doing the work in a factory. He prays that in view of the aforesaid family circumstances of the convict, a lenient view may kindly be taken in sentencing the convict.
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. The offence, for which the convict has been convicted in the matter, is highly derogatory. However, I cannot loose sight of the fact that convict is the sole bread earner of his U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 18 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 family, having responsibility of his family, his old aged parents and his younger brothers. Bearing in mind, the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, the interest of justice, would be met, if the convict is accorded minimum sentence prescribed under Sections 10 of POCSO Act, for which, the convict stands convicted as he has been able to make out good mitigating circumstances in his favour. I hereby award rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of payment of fine, further SI for a period of 6 months, for the offence u/s 10 of POCSO Act.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C is accorded to the convict.
5. Coming now to the aspect of compensation to the victim children, who are minor girls aged about 4 years and 7 years, the 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. In a case titled as Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the jurisdiction to pay compensation (interim and final) has to be treated to be a part of the over all jurisdiction of the Courts trying the offences of rape, which is an offence against basic human rights as also the Fundamental Rights of Personal Liberty and Life.
6. Even otherwise, 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 and development. It has been time and again emphasized in various legislations, international declarations as well as the U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 19 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 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. In this regard reference is made to the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC, 244, that :
"The child is a soul with a being, a nature and capacities of its own, who must be helped to find them, to grow into their maturity, into fullness of physical and vital energy and the utmost breath, depth and height of its emotional intellectual and spiritual being; otherwise there cannot be a healthy growth of the nation. Now obviously children need special protection because of their tender age and physique, mental immaturity and incapacity to look after themselves. That is why there is a growing realization in every part of the globe that children must be brought up in an atmosphere of love and affection and under the tender care and attention of parents so that they may be able to attain full emotional, intellectual and spiritual stability and maturity and acquire selfconfidence and selfrespect and a balance view of life with full appreciation and realization of the role which they have to play in the nation building process without which the nation cannot develop and attain real prosperity because a large segment of the society would then be left out of the developmental process. In India this consciousness is reflected in the provisions enacted in the Constitution. Clause (3) of Article U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 20 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015 15 enables the State to make special provisions inter alia for children and Article 24 provides that no child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. Clauses
(e) and (f) of Article 39 provide that the State shall direct its policy towards securing inter alia that the tender age of children is not abused, that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age and strength and that children are given facility to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. These constitutional provisions reflect the great anxiety of the constitution makers to protect and safeguard the interest and welfare of children in the country. The Government of India has also in pursuance of these constitutional provisions evolved a National Policy for the Welfare of Children. This Policy starts with a goal oriented perambulatory introduction."
7. Therefore, in order to provide Restorative and Compensatory Justice to the victim girls, I hereby direct learned Secretary, D.L.S.A, North West Distt. to grant compensation of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. Ten thousand only) each to the victim children T and M. The said amount shall be used for their welfare and rehabilitation, under the supervision of Welfare Officer, so nominated by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 21 of 22 SC No.7/2014: FIR No.453/2014: PS Shalimar Bagh: State V/s Aalam DOD: 20.04.2015
8. A copy of this order be sent to learned Secretary, D.L.S.A, North West Distt., Rohini Courts, Delhi and Director, Department of Woman and Child Development, GNCT of Delhi, for information and necessary action under intimation to this Court.
9. The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that if he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to Secretary, Delhi High Court, Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyer Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
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 ) (Vinod Yadav)
(Court on 07.05.2015) Addl. Session Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
U/s 10 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC: "Convicted" Page 22 of 22