Delhi District Court
State vs Amrit Kumar Gupta on 24 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH,
JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (POCSO ACT)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (NORTHEAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 44952/15
FIR No. 395/14
PS Sonia Vihar
U/s 354A/354D/506/34 IPC
& Section 12 POCSO Act.
State
Versus
1. Amrit Kumar Gupta,
S/o Sh. Ram Gupta,
R/o H. No. 206, Gali No. 5,
Village Chauhan Patti, Delhi.
2. Amit Kumar,
S/o Sh. Paras Singh,
R/o H. No. 204, Gali No. 5,
Village Chauhan Patti, Delhi.
3. Dinesh Yadav,
S/o Sh. Vindyachal Yadav,
R/o H. No. 102, Anuwart Vihar,
Village Chauhan Patti, Delhi. ....Accused.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh)
Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act)
PS Sonia Vihar 1 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017
Date of Institution : 08.05.2015.
Date of Arguments : 24.11.2017.
Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2017.
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is, that on 23.08.2014, on receipt of DD No. 29A, SI Manu Dev and Ct. Jitender went to H. No. 18, Gali No. 1, Chauhan Patti. There they met complainant Jyoti. She alleged that victim K was her daughter and was aged about 14 years. She further alleged that whenever her daughter returned from school at about 02.00 p.m., accused Amit Kumar and CCL S would follow her and pass vulgar comments. She further alleged that on 06.08.2014, when victim had gone to market, accused Amit Kumar and CCL met her on the way and passed vulgar comments on her. On 31.07.2014 also, when victim was returning from school, CCL S and Amit caught hold of her hand. On 19.08.2014 also, they molested her daughter. She further alleged that on 21.08.2014, accused Amrit Kumar and Dinesh had come to her house and had threatened her. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 354/354A/354D/506/34 IPC and Sections 8/12 POCSO Act was filed against all the accused.
2. On 14.12.2015, charge u/s 354D/34 IPC, 354A/34 IPC in alternative u/s 12 of POCSO Act and u/s 506/34 IPC was framed against FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 2 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017 accused Amit Kumar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On the same day, charge u/s 506/34 IPC was framed against all the accused to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses.
4. PW1 is Ct. Rambhool. He deposed that on 27.08.2014, he alongwith SI Manu Dev went at the house of the complainant at Chauhan Patti. Thereafter, they, alongwith complainant, went at the house of Amit Kumar in Gali no. 5, Chauhan Patti. There at the instance of complainant, accused Amit was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/A. Personal search of accused Amit was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, they went at Shukra Bazaar Road, Chauhan Patti where, at the instance of complainant, accused Amrit Kumar Gupta was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/D. Personal search of accused Amrit Kumar was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/E. After the medical examination of both the accused, they were taken to police station.
5. PW2 is HC Dharamvir. He deposed that on 23.08.2014 at about 11.35 p.m, Ct. Jitender handed to him a rukka for registration of FIR. He made endorsement, Ex.PW2/A, on the rukka. Thereafter, he got FIR (Ex.PW2/B) registered. After registration of FIR, he handed original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Jitender to be delivered to SI Manu Dev.
6. PW3 is LCt. Himani. She deposed that on 25.08.2014, she and IO SI Manu Dev had gone to the house of victim i.e. H. No. 18, Gali FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 3 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017 no. 1, Chauhan Patti, Delhi. Victim gave her statement in her own handwriting. Thereafter, victim was taken to Karkardooma Court for recording of her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. However, statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C could not be recorded and next date was given as 01.09.2014.
7. PW4 Ct. Sanoj Kumar. He deposed that on 23.08.2014 at about 11.40 p.m., on the directions of HC Dharamvir, he typed the contents of FIR (Ex.PW2/B).
8. PW5 is Smt. Jyoti, mother of accused. PW6 is the victim. Their testimonies shall be considered at a later stage as and when required.
9. PW7 is Ms. Rita, principal from DAV Model Bal Vidyalaya. She deposed that on 02.07.2007, victim was admitted in class 1 in their school. Copy of admission form is Ex.PW7/A. Copy of admission and withdrawal register is Ex.PW7/B. As per record, the date of birth of victim is 27.03.2002. The certificate issued by her on the letterhead of school regarding the particulars of victim was Ex.PW7/C.
10. PW8 is Smt. Munni Devi. She deposed that she knew Jyoti, who was her neighbour. On 19.11.2014, IO SI Manoj Bhati had recorded statement of Jyoti. She could not state that the said statement was recorded by SI Manu Dev on 23.08.2014.
11. PW9 is Shailender Singh. He deposed that he knew Jyoti, who was his neighbour. On 19.11.2014, IO SI Manoj Bhati had recorded statement of Jyoti in his presence.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 4 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017
12. PW10 is Ct. Jitender. He deposed that on 23.08.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., on receipt of DD No. 29A, he alongwith SI Manu Dev went at H. No. 18, Gali No. 1, Chauhan Patti, Delhi. There, they met complainant Jyoti, her brother in law Shailender and her neighbour Munni Devi. IO recorded statement of Jyoti and prepared rukka. IO gave rukka to him for getting FIR registered. He went at police station and got the FIR registered.
13. PW11 is SI Manu Dev. He is the IO of the case. His testimony shall be considered at a later stage as and when required.
14. PW12 is SI Yogesh Kumar. He deposed that on 10.10.2014, he got the age documents verified of CCL S. He submitted charge sheet against him before JJB. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused Amrit Kumar Gupta, Anil Kumar and Dinesh Kumar.
15. Thereafter, on 10.02.2017, statement of all accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and all accused preferred to lead evidence in their defence.
16. DW1 is Paras Singh. He deposed that his son Amit used to go to school at Chandni Chowk. In the year 2014, he was residing in Chauhan Patti. Prior to that, he was residing at Chandni Chowk. He was running a small shop. Children of locality used to come buy things from his shop. However, he did not given goods on credit and thus, his son had been falsely implicated.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 5 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017
17. DW2 is Dhirender Singh. He deposed that he used to purchase goods from the shop of Amit. In absence of Amit, the shop was being run by Paras Singh and Shakunti Devi. Two years prior to his deposition, one girl came to that shop to buy something. His uncle Paras refused to give goods to her because she had not brought money and wanted the goods on credit.
18. DW3 is HC Virender Singh. He deposed that he knew Shailender @ Sheelu. He never met Jyoti. He knew accused Amrit Lal Gupta and Dinesh Yadav. He did not know about any complaint against Shailender @ Sheelu, which was made by residents of the locality. He never noticed any demolition at the shop of Sheelu. On 21.08.2014, he had no telephonic conversation with Dinesh Yadav. On that day, he had not met Dinesh Yadav and they had no arguments. Dinesh Yadav and Amrit Gupta had not made any complaint against him to the SHO or DCP. On 22.08.2014, he was taken off the active duty by the orders of DCP and he was sent to police line because one BC of his area did not report to the police station.
19. DW4 is Smt. Shakunti Devi. She deposed that accused Amit is her son. She further deposed that her son has been falsely implicated in this case by Jyoti and her daughter/ victim. They used to come to their shop to buy household articles on credit and did not pay any amount. When they refused to give articles to Jyoti and her family, they implicated them in false FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 6 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017 case. She further deposed that brother in law of complainant Jyoti was running a sawmill at Chauhan Patti chowk and had encroached upon the government land. Complaints were made by some unknown persons. On these complaints, sawmill of Sheelu was removed by MCD officials and her son had also gone there and they have falsely implicated her son.
20. DW5 is HC Hari Mohan. He had brought the DD register. He deposed that vide DD No. 21B dated 23.08.2014, Dinesh Yadav had given a complaint for further action. He did not know the details of the complaint. The DD was exhibited as Ex.DW5/1. He further deposed that vide DD No. 32B dated 25.08.2014, Amrit Kumar Gupta had given a complaint for further action. He did not know the details of the complaint. He further deposed that DD No. 28B was recorded upon a complaint received by residents of village Chauhan Patti. That complaint was regarding illegal possession of government land.
21. DW6 is Anwar Hussain. He deposed that Shailender @ Sheelu, the devar of the complainant, had a furniture shop near bus stand Chauhan Patti. In that shop, Sheelu used to operate a sawmill. Adjacent to that shop, brotherinlaw of Sheelu, namely Ram Pravesh, had installed four/five Khokhas (kiosks). These Khokhas as well as shop of Sheelu had been erected by encroaching on public land. Against those encroachments, Chauhan Patti Vikas Samiti and Jan Kalyan Association, Amrit Vihar Chauhan Patti had started making complaints and pursuant to those FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 7 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017 complaints, the official of corporation demolished the khokhas. Because of this, many times, there were quibbles between the residents of locality including the accused Amrit Kumar Gupta and Dinesh Yadav and family members of Sheelu. Thereafter, on 21.08.2014, one Ct. Virender from PS Sonia Vihar had threatened the residents that if they continued their activities against Sheelu and Ram Pravesh, he would implicate them in some case. On 22.08.2014, they met the area DCP on 22.08.2014 and probably Ct. Virender was sent to police line. Thereafter, he came to know that the present FIR had been lodged against the accused.
22. DW6 is Gaje Singh. He deposed that in the year 2014, one Sheelu and Ram Pravesh had encroached upon the government land near bus stand, Chauhan Patti. They had installed a saw mill and some kiosks. People of the locality and accused had made complaints against this encroachment. On 20.08.2014, when they were having a meeting in this regard, Amrit Kumar received a call from HC Virender. Dinesh Kumar and Amrit left the meeting in order to meet HC Virender. On their return, Amrit Kumar and Dinesh informed them that HC Virender had threatened them with false implication.
23. I have heard learned Addl. PP for the State as well as learned counsel for the accused.
24. It has been contended by ld. Addl. PP that the prosecution through the testimonies of PW5 and PW6 has categorically proved its case.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 8 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017
PW6, who is victim and a child aged less than 18 years, has deposed that accused Amit and CCL A used to regularly harass her. Nothing has come out during her cross examination, which would shake her credibility. He has further contended that PW5 and PW6 have proved that accused Dinesh Yadav and Amrit Kumar Gupta had gone to the house of victim and had threatened her mother. He has thus contended that accused Amrit Kumar Gupta and Dinesh Yadav be convicted for offence punishable u/s 506/34 IPC and Amit Kumar be convicted for offence punishable u/s 354A/354D/506/34 IPC and section 12 POCSO Act.
25. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for accused that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case. The uncle of victim had unauthorizedly encroached upon the government land, had raised kiosks on them and used to extort money by letting out those kiosks. Accused Dinesh Yadav and Amrit Kumar Gupta, who were the members of the Residents Association, had objected to this encroachment and they had filed complaints against this encroachment. This encroachment was done under the patronage of one HC Virender Singh of PS Sonia Vihar. Therefore, in order to wreak vengeance upon accused, in conspiracy with HC Virender Singh, present false case has been foisted upon the accused. It is further contended that DW5 has proved the DD No. 21B dated 23.08.2014 which was lodged at 11.20 a.m.. Vide this DD, accused Dinesh Yadav had made a complaint. The DD was Ex.PW5/1. Vide FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 9 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017 this DD, a complaint was made against encroachment made by uncle of victim and an apprehension of false implication was raised. It has further been contended that even the allegations of molestation have been cooked up in order to create a case of serious nature. As per the statement of victim, she was allegedly molested at a place which was a public place. However, no public person came to help her. Not only this, the alleged place was near the sawmill of victim's uncle Sheelu and was also near the house of Ram Parvesh, another uncle of victim, but the victim never sought any help from them.
26. I have considered the rival submissions.
27. First, I shall take the case of accused Dinesh Yadav and accused Amrit Kumar Gupta. They have been charged that on 21.08.2014, they had gone to the house of victim and had extended threats to her mother Smt. Jyoti (PW5). In this regard, the only witness that has been examined by the prosecution is PW5 Smt. Jyoti, who is mother of victim.
28. Regarding this incident, she deposed that on 21.08.2014 at about 07.00 p.m., Dinesh Yadav and Guptaji came to their house and threatened her to call her daughter from her village otherwise they would take away her younger child, who was aged about 10 years. Thereafter, she went to police station and reported the matter to police but the police did not lodge any FIR or take any action. Thereafter, they made calls to women commission and thereafter, police called her and recorded her statement.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 10 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017
She put her thumb impression on her statement Ex.PW5/A.
29. During her cross examination on this point, she deposed that when accused Dinesh Yadav and Guptaji had come to her house, no other member of her family was present in the house. At that time, the gate of her house was open. After the accused had threatened her, she did not seek any help from any of her neighbours. On the next morning, she lodged complaint with the police regarding the threats. She did not remember if any call was made to PCR. She alone had gone to the police station. She denied that accused had never come to her house or had extended any threats to her or that they had been falsely implicated because they had lodged a complaint against her brother in law for encroachment on government land.
30. The second claimed witness of the prosecution regarding this incident is victim, who appeared as PW6. She deposed that on 24.08.2014, her mother had called her on phone and told her that on 22.08.2014, Amit, Amrit Lal Gupta and one more person went to their house and had extended threats to her mother stating that she should be called back and that they would arrange her marriage with CCL S and they had also threatened to get her brother and sister kidnapped.
31. During her cross examination, she admitted that on 22.08.2014, when accused had allegedly extended threats to her mother, she was not present in the house and the threats were not given in her presence.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 11 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017
32. Therefore, this witness i.e victim has no personal knowledge of this incident and her deposition is based on hear say. Such deposition being not admissible under law, cannot be considered.
33. Thus, the only witness regarding the threats being extended by accused Dinesh Yadav and Amrit Kumar Gupta is PW5 Jyoti. Interestingly, Smt. Jyoti (PW5) has not stated the manner in which the threats were extended. She has not even stated the words used to threaten her. She has simply stated that she was threatened by Dinesh Yadav and Guptaji. However, in her initial complaint, she had not only named Amrit Kumar Gupta and Dinesh Yadav but she had also named Amit and CCL S.
34. PW5, in her examination in chief, has claimed that on 21.08.2014, after the threats had been extended by accused Dinesh Yadav and Guptaji, she had gone to the police station to report the matter but the police did take any action and thereafter, they made calls to women commission. However, in the record, no such call made to women commission has been shown and action was in fact taken on PCR call pursuant to which DD No. 29A was recorded.
35. Surprisingly, the prosecution had not placed on record this DD no. 29A. This was a vital piece of evidence as this was the DD through which wheels of criminal justice system were set into motion. However, the prosecution withheld this piece of evidence from court. Therefore, I was constrained to look into the case diary.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 12 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017
36. In the case diary, I found the photocopy of DD No. 29A. As per DD no. 29A, a PCR call was received with the allegations that victim was being harassed by one Amit @ Lalla. The copy of this DD has been placed on record by the court and is exhibited as Ex.C1. Therefore, the first information which was given after two days of the incident on 23.08.2014 did not find any mentioning of Amrit Kumar Gupta and Dinesh Yadav or any threats being extended by them.
37. I accordingly find that firstly, the delay in lodging the FIR, the conduct of not making PCR call immediately after the alleged incident of threats and absence of any threats being given in the initial information given to PCR raises doubts about the case of the prosecution and about the credibility of this witness. Secondly, a mere statement by PW5 Smt. Jyoti that she was threatened without any details would not amount to offence u/s 506 IPC unless the manner in which the threats were extended is shown to the court and the court is convinced that the threat was of nature that it would alarm that individual regarding her personal safety or safety of someone else but the prosecution has failed to do so. I accordingly find that accused Amrit Kumar Gupta and Dinesh Yadav are entitled to benefit of doubt.
38. Coming onto the case against accused Amit Kumar.
39. Victim, appearing as PW6, deposed that in the year 2014, she was studying in class 8th in GSV School, Lancers Road, Mall Road, Delhi.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 13 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017
She used to commute by DTC bus. She would leave for school at about 06.00 a.m. and return at 02.00 p.m. Accused Amit and CCL S, who were residing in her locality, would have vulgar talks with her and would follow her. On 31.07.2014 at about 01.30/2.00 p.m., when she alighted from bus at Chauhan Patti bus stop, CCL S came there and caught her hand. He was accompanied by accused Amit. She asked CCL S to leave her hand else she would raise alarm. He left her hand and went away. In the evening of 06.08.2014, when she was returning home from the market, accused Amit and CCL S again started having vulgar talks with her. When she told them that she would complain to their parents, CCL S threatened to kill her brother and sister. She returned home and told everything to her mother. On 19.08.2014, accused Amit and CCL S again repeated these acts with her. She approached Amrit Lal Gupta, father of CCL S, at his shop and apprised him about the acts of his son. Initially, he did not believe it but later he said that he would arrange her marriage with his son. She returned to her house and told all these facts to her mother. Her mother then sent her to her uncle's house at R.K Puram.
40. During her cross examination, she deposed that Sheelu was her uncle. He was having a shop near Chauhan Patti bus stop. She admitted that on 31.07.2014, she had not made any complaint to him and volunteered, that at that time, he was not present at his shop. She deposed that she had not complained to his workers. She had also not approached or FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 14 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017 complained to Sh. Ram Parvesh, her uncle who was residing near the said bus stop. She denied that accused Amit and CCL S had never passed any vulgar comments on her. She denied that on 31.07.2014, accused Amit was not present at Chauhan Patti bus stand or that he had never used any vulgar language or never had vulgar talks with her or that she had made allegations against him after being tutored by her mother.
41. The second witness is mother of victim, who appeared as PW5.
42. She deposed that on 06.08.2014, victim informed her that accused Amit and CCL S had held her hand at Chauhan Patti bus stand at about 02.00 p.m. on that day and she raised alarm alarm and many public persons gathered there. She alongwith her daughter/ victim went to the house of CCL S to complain to his father.
43. During her cross examination, she deposed that the bus stand was at a walking distance of 5 minutes from her house. Public persons were usually present at the bus stop. She admitted that there was a sawmill near the bus stand which belonged to her brother in law Sheelu. She also admitted that Ram Parvesh, husband of her sister in law, was also residing next to saw mill. She did not know if any complaint was made by public regarding encroachment by Sheelu on public land. She did not know if accused had made complaint against Sheelu for removal of encroachment. She admitted that Alka was her tenant. She did not know if Ct. Virender FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 15 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017 used to come to meet Alka. She further deposed that immediately after returning from school, victim had told her about the incident dated 06.08.2014. She further deposed that no one from sawmill or from house of Ram Parvesh came to rescue victim when she raised alarm. Victim did not approach them for any help and straightaway came home. She denied that accused had been falsely implicated.
44. There is another witness which has been examined by the prosecution and it is PW9 Shailender Singh @ Sheelu. The prosecution has not brought much in his examination in chief but during his cross examination, he admitted that he was running a sawmill near Chauhan Patti bus stand and that residential association namely Chuahan Patti Vikas Samiti had filed a complaint with DCP against him for running the sawmill on government land.
45. From the evidence and testimonies discussed above, it is to be seen that according to victim, she was repeatedly being harassed by accused Amit and CCL S but surprisingly, the place where she was being allegedly harassed firstly was a public place and secondly was very near to sawmill of her uncle Sheelu and house of another uncle Ram Parvesh. When the victim was confronted with the situation that her uncle's sawmill was near the place where she was allegedly molested, she stated that her uncle was not present at the shop at that time. She admitted that she had neither complained to the workers of his uncle nor complained to her uncle Ram FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 16 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017 Parvesh, who was residing near the said place.
46. When the victim's relatives were available at the place where she was allegedly eve teased, her natural conduct would have been to complain to them or seek help but she did not do so and did not put forward any explanation for not doing so.
47. Second important aspect is, that no complaint was made by victim or her family members till 23.08.2014. On 23.08.2014, the immediate reason for making the complaint has been stated to be the threats allegedly given by accused Amrit Kumar Gupta and Dinesh Yadav, the allegations which have been found to be full of doubts in my earlier part of judgment. Therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR becomes important. Such delay had to be explained by the prosecution but the prosecution has failed to do so.
48. Then there are certain contradictions in testimonies of PW5 and PW6. On the one hand, according to victim, on 06.08.2014, accused had molested her in the evening when she was returning from market. On the other hand, her mother stated that on 06.08.2014, victim had told her about being molested immediately after she had returned from school at about 02.00 p.m. Firstly, as per the victim, on 06.08.2014, she was molested in the evening but as per her mother, victim was allegedly molested at about 02.00 p.m.. Secondly, according to the victim, she was molested when she was coming back from market but as per her mother, victim was molested FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 17 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017 when she was coming back from school.
49. Another contradiction is that as per PW6 on 06.08.2014 after she was allegedly molested by accused Amit and CCL S, she returned home and told everything to her mother. She did not state that her mother had taken any action on her complaint. However, her mother stated that on 06.08.2014, when the victim told her about being molested by accused Amit and CCL S, she and victim went to the house of CCL S to make a complaint. Contrary to this, victim stated that it was on 19.08.2014 that she had gone to the father of CCL S to complain about being harassed and that she had gone alone and not with her mother as had been claimed by her mother. I say that she had gone alone because she stated that after being harassed, she went to the father of CCL S and thereafter, she returned home and told everything to her mother.
50. Further, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the molestation had happened at a public place and it was repeatedly happening. However, no effort was made by the prosecution to join any public witness which could have been available in the form of shopkeepers etc. These independent witnesses become essential in view of the contradiction emerging in the testimonies of PW5 and PW6 because in absence of any corroboration, it will be unsafe to rely on their testimonies.
51. In view of my above discussion, I find that accused Amit is entitled to benefit of doubt.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 18 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017
52. All the accused are accordingly acquitted of charges framed against them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties stand discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Parveen Singh) today on 24.11.2017. Judge Special Court (POCSO Act) (This judgment contains 19 pages ASJ01, North East Distt., and each page bears my signatures.) Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
FIR No. 395/14 (Parveen Singh) Judge Spl. Court (POCSO Act) PS Sonia Vihar 19 of 19 ASJ01/NE/KKD: 24.11.2017