Delhi District Court
State vs . Jeetu on 7 April, 2014
State Vs. Jeetu
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. 123/13
ID No. 02401R0292832013
FIR No. : 94/13
Police Station : Sarai Rohilla
Under Section : 354/506 IPC &
8 of POCSO Act
State
Versus
Jeetu
S/o Kishore
R/o H. No. 22/113, Railway Colony
Kishan Ganj, Delhi
.............Accused
Date of Institution : 06.06.2012
Date of judgment : 07.04.2014
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state
Sh. Nand Kishore, Advocate, counsel for the accused
J U D G M E N T (ORAL) :-
SC No. 123/13 Page 1 of 61. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on February 21, 2013 at about 8.30 PM when victim (since she is the victim of sexual assault, in order to withhold the identity of victim, her identity is withheld and hereinafter she is referred to as complainant) aged about 17 years reached near House No. 113/13, Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj Delhi from market, accused Jeetu met there and he touched her breast and thereafter run away after giving push to her. Accordingly, police was called and she made a statement Ex.PW2/A wherein she also alleged that accused earlier also threatened her. It was alleged that the said incident was also witnessed by her grandmother (Nani). On her complaint, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 354/506 Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 & 12 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was registered.
2. During investigation, statement of victim was got registered under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C. in short). After completing investigation, challan was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354/506 Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) read with Section 8 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act in short).
3. Vide order dated August 06, 2013 a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354/506 IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty claimed trail.
SC No. 123/13 Page 2 of 64. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined following 8 witnesses:-
PW1 Grandmother of victim.
PW2 Victim.
PW3 Kishore, formal witness, informed the police.
PW4 Const. Mohit, formal witness.
PW5 Const. Maan Singh, formal witness.
PW6 SI Bacchu Singh, formal witness.
PW7 SI Indu Rani, investigating officer.
PW8 SI G.N. Tiwari, duty officer.
5. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he denied each and every incriminating evidence led by prosecution and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
6. Learned counsel appearing for accused submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in this case as victim herself admitted in her cross-examination that her breast was touched accidentally and accused had no bad intention. It was further submitted that earlier also she made an application (Ex.PW2/B) before SHO stating that she had lodged the FIR under pressure of her family members. It was alleged that no such incident had taken place.
7. Per contra learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that victim had moved an application (Ex.PW2/B) at the instance of relative of accused and in her subsequent statement, she clarified that she moved an application as she was busy in the preparation of her 10th class SC No. 123/13 Page 3 of 6 State Vs. Jeetu examination. However, he fairly conceded that victim in her cross- examination admitted that accused had no sexual intent and he touched her breast accidentally.
8. I have heard rival submissions made by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
9. PW2 in her cross-examination admitted that on February 22, 2013, she had given an application (Ex.PW2/B) to the SHO stating that no such incident had taken place and she had lodged a complaint under pressure of her family and further requested not to take any action against the accused. In her cross-examination, she took a plea that she had written the said application at the instance of Bhabhi of accused, who requested to move said application but she admitted that she was not under the pressure of his Bhabhi. PW7 in her deposition deposed that when she came to know about the application (Ex.PW2/B), she again interrogated the victim and victim told her that she moved the said application as she was busy in preparation of her 10th class examination and she did not want to waste her time in the Court proceedings. Admittedly, in her subsequent statement (Ex.PW7/C), she no where deposed that she had moved the application (Ex.PW2/B) at the request of Bhabhi of accused. Thus, there is a material contradiction between the deposition of PW2 and the plea taken by her in her subsequent statement (Ex.PW7/C). It is not clear whether she had moved the application (Ex.PW2/B) at the instance of Bhabhi of accused as deposed in the Court or she moved the said application on the ground that she was busy in the preparation of 10th class examination.
SC No. 123/13 Page 4 of 610. Though PW2 in her examination-in-chief deposed that when she was coming back from the market after taking kitchen masala from Moti Bagh, accused met her near Quarter No. 113/13 and he had touched her breast. Since, the incident was also seen by her Nani, she raised alarm. But in her cross-examination, she clarified that accused had no bad intention and he touched her breast accidentally. She further deposed that accused had never threatened her. Thus, from her testimony, it becomes clear that accused had no sexual intent when he accidentally touched the breast of PW2. She further admitted in cross-examination that accused is her friend and she used to talk with him on phone and she used to talk with him being a friend.
11. No doubt, under Section 30 of POCSO Act onus is upon the accused to establish that he had no sexual intent. However, in the instant case, accused has discharged his onus beyond reasonable doubt as PW2 herself admitted in her deposition that accused touched her breast accidentally and he had no bad intention. This proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused had no sexual intent while he accidentally touched her breast.
12. Though PW1 also deposed that she had witnessed the incident but in view of the testimony of PW2, testimony of PW1 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the culpability of accused. PW2 further admitted in her cross-examination that she did not raise any alarm and she ignored the accused. Had there been any sexual intent or it was an intentional act on the part of accused, victim would not have ignored the same; rather she would have made hue and cry. This further proves that it SC No. 123/13 Page 5 of 6 State Vs. Jeetu was an accident and accused had no sexual intent.
13. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly, I hereby acquit Jeetu from all the charges.
14. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on this 07th day of April,2014 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 CENTRAL/THC, DELHI SC No. 123/13 Page 6 of 6