Delhi District Court
Sc No: 188/14 State vs . Veer Bahadur on 14 August, 2015
SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, NORTH
ROHINI, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :-
S. C. No. 188/14
FIR No. 544/14
Police Station Adarsh Nagar
Under Section 376/506 IPC & 4 POCSO
ID No. 02405R0-370022014
State
Versus
Veer Bahadur
S/o Sh. Nar Bahadur,
R/o B-27, Tagore Road, Adarsh Nagar
Delhi
......Accused
Date of institution 19.09.2014
Judgment reserved on 14.08.2015
Judgment Pronounced on 14.08.2015
Decision Acquitted
Judgment 1 of 10
SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial in the present case on allegations that he committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim A, his niece aged about 13 years.
2. FIR in question was registered on the complaint of victim alleging that she is residing with her parents on the first floor of the property and in the same property her fufa (uncle) accused Veer Bahadur is residing at the ground floor. About 2 ½ months prior to 15.08.2014 it rained heavily due to which the water clogged on the terrace of the property. Accused Veer Bahadur called the victim to drain the water from the terrace and when she went on the terrace, the accused forcibly took her to a room and committed rape upon her. When the victim told to the accused that she would disclose the incident to her mother, the accused threatened to kill Judgment 2 of 10 SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur her brother and mother. She further alleged that about 10 days prior to lodging of the complaint when her parents were away, the accused committed wrong act with her after calling her in his room. The accused commits wrong act with her in the absence of her parents. The victim disclosed about the acts of the accused to her friend who in turn informed the aunt of the victim about the incidents. Everybody in the family came to know about the acts of the accused and the victim was told not to tell about the incident to anybody. However, the victim and her mother came to lodge the complaint fearing that the accused may assault the victim again.
3. The statement of the victim was recorded by the IO. The victim was got medically examined. Her statement was got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The IO investigated the matter from the friend of the victim but her friend refused to divulge any details. On 22.08.2014 accused was arrested at the instance of the mother of the victim.
Judgment 3 of 10
SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur
4. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable U/s 376/506 IPC & 4,6 POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act. The charge for the offence punishable 6 POCSO Act in alternative U/s 376 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses.
6. PW1 is the victim. She did not support the version of the prosecution. Victim deposed that nothing happened with her. Victim's mother had a money dispute with the accused and her mother made her to write the present complaint. She proved her statement before the police as Ex. PW1/A. Her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW1/B. Victim also proved her endorsement on the MLC as Ex. PW1/C. Judgment 4 of 10 SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur
7. PW2 is the mother of the victim. She also did not support the version of the prosecution and deposed that her daughter never told her about any sexual assault by the accused on her. She deposed that her daughter was medically examined and also proved the arrest of the accused vide memo Ex PW2/A & B.
8. PW3 HC Ram Singh proved the FIR as Ex. PW3/A, his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW3/B and the certificate U/s 65(B) Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW3/C.
9. PW4 Ct. Pooja deposed that on the intervening night of 15-16.08.2014, she along with IO sent the victim to Kilkari Home.
10. PW5 HC Balu Palve also proved the arrest & personal search of the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/A & B. Judgment 5 of 10 SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur
11. PW6 Vijay Singh is uncle of the victim. He deposed that the victim disclosed to him about the incidents of sexual assault on her by the accused person.
12. Accused gave a statement wherein the accused admitted his MLC as Ex. PX-1, his potency test report as Ex. PX-2 and report of bone age test of the victim as Ex. PX-3. In view of the same, the Doctor witnesses and police witnesses were not summoned for examination before the court. The remaining witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW6 and their testimonies have already been discussed herein above. In these circumstances PE was closed.
13. Statement of accused was dispensed with as no incriminating evidence came on record against the accused from the statements of material witnesses.
Judgment 6 of 10
SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur
14. Arguments have been addressed by learned
Additional PP as well as learned defence counsel.
15. I have heard the arguments and also perused the case file carefully.
16. Age of the Victim: In the present case, accused is alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault upon victim, a minor aged about 16 years. As per the bone age test report of the victim, Ex PX-3, the age of the victim was found to be 16-18 years. The defense has not disputed the age of the victim in any manner. The age of the victim is found between 16-18 years on the date of incident and thus she is a 'Child' within the meaning given under POCSO Act.
17. Testimony of victim & her mother: PW1 is the victim. She has not supported the prosecution version and has categorically denied that her uncle (accused) committed sexual Judgment 7 of 10 SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur assault upon her. She testified that she lodged the complaint against the accused on asking of her mother. She testified that she gave the statements Ex PW1/A & B at the instance of her mother.
18. Similarly, PW2 mother of the victim also denied that her daughter was sexually assaulted by the accused. She deposed that her daughter never disclosed her that the accused assaulted her. Both the victim and her mother have turned hostile and denied that the accused committed sexual assault on the victim.
19. PW6 uncle of the victim did support the prosecution version to the extent the victim did inform him that the accused sexually assaulted her. However, in the wake of the testimony of the victim herself that the accused did not commit any wrong with her, the deposition of PW6 is not material. The deposition of PW6 is merely an hearsay evidence, thus cannot be relied upon to bring home the guilt of the accused.
Judgment 8 of 10
SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur
20. More so, there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegations leveled by the victim in her statements Ex PW1/A & B against the accused. As per MLC of the victim Ex PW1/C, it is mentioned the victim was brought to hospital with alleged history of sexual assault by her uncle 15 days back. There was no fresh injury of any assault on the person of victim. In view of the allegations of sexual assault about 15 days of reporting the incident nothing could have come in the forensic examination as well. Thus, there is nothing on record to sustain the allegations of sexual assault upon the victim by the accused.
21. Keeping in view the fact that the victim and other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no medical evidence to that effect, the allegations against the accused persons for sexually assaulting the victim and causing hurt to her stands not proved.
Judgment 9 of 10
SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur
22. In these circumstances, accused Veer Bahadur is
acquitted for the offence punishable 6 POCSO Act in alternative U/s 376 IPC. 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.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on Day of 14th August, 2015.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
Judgment 10 of 10
SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur
State Vs Vir Bahadur
FIR No. 544/14
PS Adarsh Nagar
SC No.188/14
14.08.2015
Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel Sh. Suresh Tomar. IO/SI Renu in person.
Statement of the accused is recorded separately, where he admitted his MLC, Potency test report and Report of bone age test of the victim.
In view of the statement of the accused, MLC of the accused is Ex. PX-1, Potency test report of the accused is Ex. PX-2 and Report of bone age test of the victim is Ex. PX-3.
Since, material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. PE stands closed. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused. Accordingly, recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C stands dispensed with.
Judgment 11 of 10 SC No: 188/14 State Vs. Veer Bahadur -2-
Vide separate judgment, the accused stands acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 6 POCSO Act and in alternative U/s 376(2)(g) IPC. 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.
Bond furnished and accepted.
File be consigned to record room.
(GAUTAM MANAN)
ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI
14.08.2015
Judgment 12 of 10