Delhi District Court
Sc No. 58389/16 State vs . Ravi & Anr. on 3 December, 2016
SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, NORTH
ROHINI, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 58389/16
FIR No. 91/13
Police Station Mukherji Nagar
Under Section 328/377/384/506/34
IPC & 4 POCSO Act.
State
Versus
1. Ravi
S/o. Sh. Ram Singh
2. Satpal
S/o. Sh. Ram Singh
Both R/o H. No. 224,
Village Dhirpur, Delhi ......Accused Persons
Date of institution 09/01/14
Judgment reserved on 03/12/16
Judgment Pronounced on 03/12/16
Decision Acquitted
Judgment 1 of 11
SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Satpal is facing trial in the present case on allegations of sexually assaulting, administrating stupefying substance, extorting money and threatening victim "S", a boy aged about 13 years. Accused Ravi is facing trial on allegations of extorting money from victim "S"and threatening him.
2. FIR in question was registered on the complaint of victim who alleged that accused Ravi & Satpal used to go to same gym in which victim was going. Victim developed friendship with accused persons and being elder to victim, he used to call them 'bhaiya'. After one week of his friendship with accused persons, they asked him to deposit their fee in the Gym to which victim refused then accused persons threatened him that they would kill his father and then victim brought Rs. 10,000/- from his house and handed over money to accused Satpal. Accused persons Judgment 2 of 11 SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
demanded money from victim and he handed over Rs. 6000/- to accused Ravi. Once again, accused Satpal asked victim to bring money from his house and he brought Rs. 6000/- and handed over to Satpal. Under fear & threat, victim kept on giving money to accused Satpal. One day accused Satpal called victim at his Sweet shop. After Gym hours victim went to his shop. Accused Satpal called victim at his shop and offered sweets to victim and thereafter he took victim to a room where victim started feeling dizzy. After one hour when victim woke up, he found that he was completely naked. Accused Satpal asked victim to put on clothes and threatened him that if he would disclose the incident to anybody , accused would kidnap him from Rohini. For next 15-20 days, accused Satpal used to call victim at his shop and used to commit the same act. After reaching home, victim used to feel dizziness and pain in his body. Victim didn't disclose the incident to anybody in his family. Whenever victim used to go for defecation, he used to feel pain in his anus and some white fluid used to come out of his anus. Thereafter, victim stop visiting Judgment 3 of 11 SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
vicinity of accused. One day, his aunty (Bua) recovered a phone from victim and informed his father. When father of victim inquired him about the phone, victim narrated the whole incident to his father and that he stole money from house and used the stolen money to buy phone. Victim stated that Ravi & Satpal after giving threats to him extorted money from him and Satpal committed sexual assault on him.
3. Victim was got medically examined, his statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded. Accused persons were arrested and charge-sheeted. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 328/386/506/34 IPC & u/s 6 POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) in alternative U/s 377 IPC was framed against accused Satpal. Charge for offence punishable under Section 386/506/34 IPC was framed against accused Ravi. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Judgment 4 of 11
SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
4. Prosecution examined victim as PW1. He deposed that in the month of December 2012, he joined a Gym and got befriended with many boys in the Gym. He gave some money to the boys which they promised him to return. In the month of December 2012, he went with those boys for roaming near his locality. Those boys made him to eat something thereafter he fell unconscious. When he regained conscious, he found himself in semi naked condition. He was without his pants and underwear. Nobody else was there. He wore his clothes and returned to his house. He felt that something wrong was committed on him by those boys. PW1 further deposed that he disclosed the incident to his parents after about one week of the incident and matter was reported to the police by his father. Victim deposed that his statement Ex. PW1/A recorded by police. He proved his statement Ex. PW1/B recorded before the Ld. MM. However, victim deposed that he had given the said statement as he had suspicion upon the accused persons as they were also doing Gym with him but later on he realized that they had not committed any Judgment 5 of 11 SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
wrong act with him. Victim deposed that both accused persons are residing in his locality but they are not those boys who borrowed money from him and they did not commit wrong act with him. PW1 was declared hostile as he resiled from his previous statements and despite his cross-examination he maintained that the accused did not commit sexual assault on him nor extorted money from him.
5. PW2 father of victim also did not support prosecution case. He deposed that in March 2013, his son/victim (PW1) told him that some boys committed sexual assault upon him and he reported the matter to police. He deposed that accused Satpal and Ravi did not extort money from his son nor committed sexual assault on him. PW2 was declared hostile as he resiled from his previous statements and despite his cross-examination he maintained that the accused did not commit sexual assault on his son nor extort money from him.
Judgment 6 of 11
SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
6. PW3 aunt of victim (bua) also did not support prosecution case. She deposed that on 14.03.2013, she found a mobile under bed of victim and asked victim as to whom the mobile belongs to, thereafter, victim disclosed to her two boys committed sexual assault upon him and they also extorted money from him. Witness informed her brother (PW2) about the facts disclosed by her nephew. PW3 was declared hostile as she resiled from her previous statement and despite her cross-examination she maintained that the accused did not commit sexual assault on her nephew nor extorted money from him.
7. Since victim, his father and aunt who are material witnesses of the case did not support the prosecution case, recording of further prosecution evidence was closed. Recording of statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as no incriminating evidence came on record against them.
Judgment 7 of 11
SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
8. Arguments have been addressed by learned
Additional PP as well as learned defence counsel.
9. Age of the victim: In the present case, prosecution has relied upon the school record of victim as per which date of birth of victim is 09.10.1999. Defence has not disputed the age of victim in any manner. As such, it is held that on the date of incident (14.12.2012), victim was about 13 years old and hence he was a "Child" within the meaning given under the POCSO Act.
10. Testimony of victim & his family members: Victim deposed that in the month of December 2012, he joined a Gym in and got befriended with many boys in the Gym. He gave money to some boys which they promised him to return. He went with those boys for roaming near his locality. Those boys made him to eat something thereafter he fell unconscious. When he regained conscious, he found himself in semi naked condition. He was Judgment 8 of 11 SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
without his pants and underwear. He felt that something wrong was committed on him by those boys. He was not able to resist the act as such he disclosed the incident to his parents after about one week of the incident and matter was reported to the police. Victim deposed that accused persons were not the boys to whom he lent money and committed sexual assault on him. He failed to identify the accused persons as offenders. Despite his cross-examination by Ld Addl PP for State, he maintained that the accused did not commit sexual assault on him nor extorted money from him.
11. Similarly, father of victim (PW2) did not support prosecution case and denied that the victim told him that accused persons threatened and sexually assaulted victim and further extorted money from him. PW3 aunt of victim also did not support prosecution version and denied that victim told her that accused persons threatened, extorted money and sexually assaulted victim.
Judgment 9 of 11
SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
12. It is evident that neither victim nor his family members have supported the prosecution version. From testimony the testimony of victim. it has become evident that he has failed to identify accused persons as offenders. Although, the victim in his statements ExPW1/A & B named the accused persons as offenders but in his testimony victim explained that as he had stated so merely on suspicion on the accused persons as they were also doing Gym with him. Therefore, in the light of testimony of prosecution witnesses there is no evidence on record to link the accused persons with crime committed.
13. Medical & Forensic Evidence:As per MLC of the victim no sign of medical assault were observed in the MLC. As per FSL result as well, the DNA generated from the exhibits of victim did not match with the DNA of accused and as such there is no medical & forensic evidence to indicate role of accused Satpal in committing any sexual assault on victim.
Judgment 10 of 11
SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
14. Conclusion: From the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that allegations against the accused persons are not proved. Accordingly, they are acquitted. Bail bond of the accused stands canceled. Surety stands discharged. Accused persons are directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- each under provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C with surety in the like amount.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 03rd day of December, 2016.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
Judgment 11 of 11
SC No. 58389/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
FIR No. 91/13
SC No. 58389/16
PS Mukherji Nagar
03.12.2016
Present: Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused persons on bail with Sh. Jaiveer Chauhan, Counsel. No PW is present. FSL Result filed today. Copy given. Victim and other material witness have not supported the case of prosecution, as such, PE stands closed. Statement of accused is dispensed with as no incriminating evidence came on record against accused persons from the statements of material witnesses.
Vide separate judgment, the accused persons stands acquitted for the offence for which they have been charged. Accused persons are directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs 10,000/- under provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Bonds furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
` 03.12.2016
Judgment 12 of 11