Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranjan Rati on 30 May, 2014
State Vs. Ranjan Rati
FIR NO: 401/13
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :--
SC No. : 94/02/13
FIR No. : 401/13
Police : Bindapur
Station
Under : u/s 6 r/w Section 5(m) of
Section The Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and u/s 506(i) Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
State
Versus
1. Ranjan Rati
S/o Sh.Ram Krishan
R/o WZ-80, Prem Nagar, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi. ... Accused
Fresh charge : 30.10.2013
sheet received
on assignment
Reserved for : 26.05.2014
judgment on
Judgment : 30.05.2014
announced on
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 27.08.2013, DD No. 41B regarding misbehaviour with a six year old girl by someone SC NO: 94/02/13 1/10 State Vs. Ranjan Rati FIR NO: 401/13 was marked to IO SI Nirmal Sharma and thereafter, he had gone to H.No.979, JJ Colony, Old Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Bindapur where ASI Banwari Lal was already present there alongwith child victim and her mother and he handed over MLC NO. 21386/13 alongwith three exhibits and one sample seal sealed with the seal of CMO, DDU Hospital.
2. In the statement made to the police Ex.PW1/B, child victim aged 6 years [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) in presence of her mother, had stated that near Mandir, accused by offering toffee inserted his finger into her vagina and thereafter, had put his hand into her underwear and thereafter offered her toffees and when in the night, she felt pain while urinating, then she told the entire facts to her mother. Child victim further stated that accused used to come daily in the evening to the temple to distribute toffees. She further stated that accused Ranjan has done wrong act with her and told her that he would beat her up if she would tell the said fact to her mother.
3. On the basis of complaint of the child victim, FIR No. 401/13 P.S. Bindapur was registered u/s 376(2) IPC and u/s 3 and 6 SC NO: 94/02/13 2/10 State Vs. Ranjan Rati FIR NO: 401/13 of POCSO Act 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 and one resident of area Mandir was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
4. After completion of investigation, accused was charge sheeted for the offence 376(II) IPC and Section 3 and 6 of POCSO Act.
5. Since the matter pertained to POCSO Act, therefore, charge sheet was filed directly before this court. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused was summoned and on his appearance, copy of charge sheet and documents were supplied to him. Thereafter, arguments on the point of charge were heard and based upon the material on record, charge against accused was framed for the offence u/s 6 r/w Section 5(m) of POCSO Act and u/s 506(i) IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence.
6. Prosecution has examined child victim as PW1, mother of child victim as PW2, resident of area Mandir as PW3 and doctor from DDU Hospital as PW4.
7. PW1/Child victim has deposed on oath that police official came to her house and they made inquiry from her mother. PW SC NO: 94/02/13 3/10 State Vs. Ranjan Rati FIR NO: 401/13 Child victim deposed that police official took her to hospital for her medical examination. PW1 Child victim deposed that nothing had happened with her. PW1 further deposed that she do not want to say anything else in the present case. PW1 Child victim deposed that one day her mother took her to Dwarka Court but she do not know for what purpose her mother brought her to Dwarka Court. PW1 Child victim identified her signature at points A and B on statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/A. PW1 Child victim voluntarily deposed that she has not given such statement. After seeing the accused, PW1 child victim stated that she had never seen accused before the day of her examination.
8. Since PW1 was not supporting the prosecution evidence, therefore, she was allowed to be cross examined by the Ld.Addl.PP. Despite cross-examination by the Ld.Addl.PP for state, no incriminating material could be brought on record by the prosecution as child victim denied that police officials made inquiry from her and her statement dated 27.08.2013 was recorded. PW1 Child victim denied that on 27.08.2013, she had stated to police official in her statement that on 26.08.2013 at about 7.30-8.00p.m when she was present near the temple near her house, one uncle reached there and he inserted his one finger into her vagina or that thereafter the said uncle had given her a toffee. PW1 Child victim denied that SC NO: 94/02/13 4/10 State Vs. Ranjan Rati FIR NO: 401/13 during night, she felt pain while urinating and she told the same thing to her mother or that thereafter her mother applied some ointment on her private part or that the said uncle had extended threat to her if she will disclose this fact to her mother, he will beat her. PW1 Child victim further denied that she had given her statement before Ld.MM on her own. After the attention of witness was drawn to accused present in the court stating that he is the same person, who had put his finger in her private part, PW1 Child victim stated that she do not know who he is and no one had committed any wrong act with her at any point of time.
9. PW2 is the mother of child victim and she deposed that police never met her about this case nor her statement was recorded. She further deposed that she do not want to say anything else in the present case.
10.Since mother of child victim was also not supporting the prosecution case, Ld.Addl.PP was allowed to cross examine her. On being cross examined by Ld.Addl.PP for state, PW2 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW2/A. PW2 denied that she had stated to police official in her statement dated 27.08.2013 Ex.PW2/A that on 26.08.2013, her daughter child victim was playing in the temple or that one person used to come to the temple every day who used to distribute toffees, SC NO: 94/02/13 5/10 State Vs. Ranjan Rati FIR NO: 401/13 biscuits and pencils amongst the children or that the said person had given toffee to her daughter/child victim also on that day or that on the intervening night of 26/27.08.2013, her daughter/child victim told her that she is suffering severe pain in her private part or that thereafter, she had applied some ointment on her private part. PW2 denied that she had stated to police official in her statement dated 27.08.2013 Ex.PW2/A that when her daughter child victim was suffering from severe pain, she told her that said uncle, who used to distribute biscuits, toffees and pencils amongst the children had put his finger in her private part or that in the morning, she apprised the entire facts to her landlord, who made call at 100 number or that thereafter police official reached at her house and recorded the statement of her daughter/ child victim.
11.PW2 further denied that accused was arrested at her instance. Although PW2 admitted her signatures on the arrest memo of accused Ex.PW2/B but she further deposed that Police official had obtained her signatures on some blank papers. PW2 denied that she is not disclosing true facts being won over by the accused.
12.PW3 was the resident of Shiv Shakti Balmiki Mandir where accused used to go daily. PW3 deposed that she alongwith her family reside in the premises of 'Shiv Shakti Balmiki Mandir'.
SC NO: 94/02/13 6/10State Vs. Ranjan Rati FIR NO: 401/13 PW3 deposed that accused used to visit said temple regularly and used to perform prayers in the temple. PW3 deposed that accused used to distribute toffees among children daily and on special occasions, books, note books, pencil, erasers etc to children who used to reside in jhuggies around the temple.
13.PW3 deposed that on the next day of the incident, mother of child victim along with landlady came to the temple at around 11 am and told her that some one had misbehaved with the child victim in the premises of above said temple. PW3 deposed that mother of the child victim called the police by dialing 100 number. Thereafter some police officials came to the house of child victim who took the child victim to the hospital. PW3 deposed that she also accompanied the child victim along with mother of child victim to the hospital. PW3 deposed that child victim did not tell anything to her. Police enquired her about the incident and her statement was recorded by the police.
14.Since PW3 was not supporting the prosecution evidence, therefore, she was allowed to be cross examined by the Ld.Addl.PP. Despite cross-examination by the Ld.Addl.PP for state, no incriminating material could be brought on record by the prosecution. PW3 denied that she had stated to the police officials in her statement that when she along with child victim, SC NO: 94/02/13 7/10 State Vs. Ranjan Rati FIR NO: 401/13 mother of child victim went to the house of accused or that on seeing the accused, child victim told them that he is the same uncle who had inserted his finger into her vagina. PW3 denied that she is deposing falsely in order to save the accused being her neighbour.
15.PW4 is Dr.Sumana. Sr.Resident of DDU Hospital, New Delhi, who deposed that on 27.08.2013, child victim aged 06 years was referred to department of obstetrics and Gynecology and she had examined the child victim. PW4 proved her report from point X to X on Ex.PW4/A.
16.Since in the evidence of material witnesses i.e. PW1,PW2 and PW3, nothing incriminating had come on record against the accused, examination of remaining witnesses who were formal in nature was dispensed with and prosecution evidence was closed. In absence of any incriminating evidence, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with and the matter was posted for final arguments.
17.I have heard the ld. Addl.PP for state and ld.counsel for accused Sh.Y.P.Sirohi, and have perused the material available on record.
18.The onus was upon the prosecution to prove that on SC NO: 94/02/13 8/10 State Vs. Ranjan Rati FIR NO: 401/13 26.08.2013 at about 7.30-8.00p.m near Shiv Mandir, Old Pankha Road, JJ Colony, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, accused had inserted his finger into the vagina of child victim and had threated her to be beaten up if she would disclose this fact to her mother to prove offence u/s 6 r/w Section 5(m) of POCSO Act and u/s 506(i) IPC.
19.The best evidence which could have proved the aforementioned charge was the child victim herself. However, testimony of child victim do not in any way incriminate accused. Child victim has deposed that nothing had happened with her and she failed to recognize the accused as the same person, who had done wrong acts with her. On the contrary, she stated that no one had done anything wrong with her and she does not know accused. Even after her attention was drawn by ld.Addl.PP for state towards accused as the same person, who had committed wrong acts with her, child victim stated that she does not know accused. Even the mother of child victim PW2 did not support the prosecution case that child victim had told her about the wrong acts done with her by accused or she applying ointment on the private part of the child victim.
20.Further, PW3 , who was the resident of Shiv Shakti Balmiki Mandir where the alleged offence took place also did not SC NO: 94/02/13 9/10 State Vs. Ranjan Rati FIR NO: 401/13 support the prosecution case that in her presence, child victim had identified accused as the same person, who had done wrong acts with her.
21.Therefore, from the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3, who are the only material witnesses in this case, who could have proved the prosecution case, it has come on record that it was not accused who committed any act of inserting his finger into vagina of child victim or of threatening her.
22.In the light of above discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against accused for the offence u/s 6 r/w section 5(m) of POCSO Act and u/s 506(i) IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offence u/s u/s 6 r/w section 5(m) of POCSO Act and u/s 506(i) IPC. Personal bond/surety bond, if any of accused is discharged.
23.In terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C let accused furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-with one surety in the like amount with undertaking to appear before the appellate court as and when he receives notice from it.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 30.05.2014 ASJ-01/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
SC NO: 94/02/13 10/10