Delhi District Court
Sc No: 58081/16 State vs . Ravi & Anr. on 1 September, 2016
SC No: 58081/16 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 58081/16
FIR No. 45/13
Police Station Bhalswa Dairy
Under Section 323/509/34 IPC & 8/12
POCSO Act.
ID No. 02404RO-118752013
State
Versus
1. Ravi
S/o. Netra Pal
R/o H. No. 965, Gali No. 9,
Mukundpur, Delhi.
2. Rinkaj @ Rocky
S/o. Ram Chander
R/o H. No. 77, Gali No. 3,
Mukundpur, Part-1,Delhi. ......Accused Persons
Date of institution 02.05.2013
Judgment reserved on 12.08.2016
Judgment Pronounced on 01/09/16
Decision Accused Rinkaj @
Rocky convicted
Judgment 1 of 9
SC No: 58081/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Ravi and Rinkaj @ Rocky are facing trial on allegations that they caused simple hurt to prosecutrix as well as sexually harassed her.
2. FIR in question was registered on the statement of prosecutrix who alleged that on 10.02.2013 at about 4 PM, she alongwith her friend Hasina went to meet their friend Kanchan. When they were returning back from D-Block, Part-1, Mukundpur, accused Ravi who is her neighbor was standing along with accused Rinkaj @ Rocky and both of them started passing remarks on her and when prosecutrix resisted their act accused Rinkaj caught hold hand of the prosecutrix and slapped her on her face. Prosecutrix came back to her home and narrated the incident to her mother. Family members of prosecutrix then called at 100. Police came and recorded the statement of prosecutrix.
Judgment 2 of 9
SC No: 58081/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
3. Accused persons were arrested and were charge- sheeted. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC & Section 12 POCSO (Protection of children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 was framed against the accused persons. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all.
5. PW1 prosecutrix deposed that she along with her friend Hasina were returning from their friend's house, she saw accused Rocky who used to visit the house of accused Ravi was standing there. Rocky asked her to stop but she rebuked him. On this, accused slapped her on her cheeks. Rocky asked her as to why she abused mother of Ravi. Prosecutrix returned to her house and narrated the incident to her mother. Her mother informed the police at 100. Police arrived and recorded statement of prosecutrix as Ex.PW1/A. Prosecutrix further deposed that when she was going to her friend's house, she noticed accused Ravi with Rocky.
Judgment 3 of 9
SC No: 58081/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
6. PW2 mother of prosecutrix deposed that on 10.02.2013 prosecutrix went along with her friend to meet her friend Kanchan. Prosecutrix returned home weeping and told her that while prosecutrix and her friend were returning, on the way Rocky and Ravi met her and Rocky had stopped her and slapped her after holding her hand. PW2 immediately informed this to her husband and thereafter, informed the matter to the police. Police reached and recorded statement of her daughter and apprehended accused persons.
7. PW3 Nandani Luthra, Principal proved the date of birth of friend of prosecutrix by producing her school record in the court as Ex. PW3/A.
8. PW4 HC Devender Singh proved the FIR as Ex. PW4/A, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW4/C and a certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW4/B. Judgment 4 of 9 SC No: 58081/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
9. PW5 Vijay Kumar proved date of birth of prosecutrix as 01.07.1998 as per school record as Ex. PW5/A to C.
10. PW6 Ct. Ashwani Kumar @ Jonny proved the DD entry No. 58B as Ex. PW6/A.
11. PW7 HC Lakshman Pandey proved the arrest memos of accused Ravi as Ex. PW7/A & E, his personal search memos as Ex. PW7/B & Ex. PW7/F. He also proved the arrest memos of accused Rocky as Ex. PW7/C & G & his personal search memos as Ex. PW7/D & H.
12. PW8 SI Ravinder Singh was Investigating Officer of the case for short duration and during investigations he appeared for a Court hearing of the bail application of accused persons.
13. PW9 HC Chaman Singh proved the rukka Ex. PW9/A & Site plan Ex. PW9/B. Judgment 5 of 9 SC No: 58081/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
14. PW10 SI Sangeeta Investigating Officer added section 8 POCSO Act. She collected the age proof of prosecutrix from her school.
15. Friend of prosecutrix namely Hasina was not trace- able and as such she was not examined. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the accused Ravi stated that no such incident happened. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Rinkaj also took the same defense.
16. Arguments have been addressed by learned Additional PP as well as learned Defense Counsels.
17. Age of the prosecutrix: Prosecution has relied upon the school record of prosecutrix as Ex. PW5/A to C as per which date of birth of prosecutrix is mentioned as 01.07.1998. Age of prosecutrix is not disputed by defense nor any document has been produced to controvert the record. Thus, it is held that prosecutrix Judgment 6 of 9 SC No: 58081/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
was about 14 years of age at the time of incident (10.02.2013) and was a child within the meaning given under POCSO Act.
18. Testimony of prosecutrix: In her deposition prosecutrix did not name accused Ravi to be present at the spot. She deposed that accused Rocky was standing on the way and when he asked her to stop, she rebuked him and upon this accused Rocky slapped her on her cheeks. During her cross-examination, prosecutrix deposed that accused did not pass any lewd remarks of her and rather was abusing her.
19. Prosecutrix categorically deposed that accused Rocky slapped her and no material has been brought on record to discredit testimony of prosecutrix which is found to be truthful and reliable. In cross examination of prosecutrix no material contradiction has come out. No motive has been attributed to prosecutrix as to why she would lodge a false complaint against the accused Rinakj @ Rocky . Even during his statement recorded Judgment 7 of 9 SC No: 58081/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
u/s. 313 Cr. P.C, he could not give any reason as to why prosecutrix named him as the person who misbehaved with her.
20. It is evident that the prosecutrix in her testimony did not level any allegations against accused Rocky of assaulting her with any sexual intent. From the testimony of prosecutrix it can be inferred that the true genesis of incident was that the accused Rocky was annoyed with the prosecutrix as the prosecutrix as per the knowledge of accused had abused mother of Ravi. Sexual intent of the accused in assaulting the prosecutrix is absent. In these facts, accused Rinkaj @ Rocky is held to be guilty for the offence punishable U/s 323 IPC.
21. Conclusion: In the light of aforesaid discussions, accused Rinkaj @ Rocky is held guilty for causing simple hurt on the prosecutrix that is for offence punishable U/s 323 IPC. Accordingly, he stands convicted for the said offence.
Judgment 8 of 9
SC No: 58081/16 State Vs. Ravi & Anr.
22. Accused Ravi has not named as a culprit by the prosecutrix. There is no evidence on record to establish that Ravi was present along with accused Rocky at the time of incident. Hence, accused Ravi is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs 10,000/- under provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C with surety in the like amount.
Matter now be listed for hearing arguments on quantum of sentence qua accused Rinkaj @ Rocky on 06.09.2016.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
01.09.2016
Judgment 9 of 9