Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Gul Bahar @ Kaleem on 14 November, 2014
1 IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 (WEST):DELHI SC No. 225/13 Unique Case I.D. No. 02401R043752013 FIR No. 161/13 PS Kirti Nagar U/s 354A (I) IPC and U/s 11/12 of POCSO Act State Vs. Mohd. Gul Bahar @ Kaleem S/o Mohd. Ateeq R/o A547, Harijan Camp Jhuggi Kirti Nagar, Delhi. ... Accused Date of Institution : 31.08.2013 Date of arguments : 13.11.2014 Date of Judgment : 14.11.2014 JUDGMENT
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.5.13, on receiving of DD No. 29A, the police went to the spot at Kamla Nehru Camp. At the spot, police met the prosecutrix aged about 16 years and police recorded her statement. In that statement, the prosecutrix has made the allegations that on 12.5.13 at about 8.30 p.m. at Kamla Nehru Camp Jhuggi, Pani Ka Nalka, F Block, Kirti Nagar, Delhi, the accused has caught hold her hand and has tried to SC No. 225/13 Page 1of 6 2 took her to the park. She raised noise and the accused ran away after leaving her. On the basis of that statement, the FIR was registered. On 13.5.13, the accused was arrested from his house on the identification of the prosecutrix. The statement of the prosecutrix was also got recorded U/s 164 Cr. P.C.
2. After investigation of the case, the charge sheet has been filed U/s 354 (A) IPC and U/s 11 and 12 of POCSO Act. Charge U/s 12 of POCSO Act has been framed against the accused. The accused has pleaded not guilty to the charge.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded in which he had denied the case of the prosecution. The accused has not led any evidence in his defence.
4. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused and perused the evidence on record.
PW1 H.C. Daulat Singh Rana has proved the FIR as Ex. PW1/A and DD No. 29A as Ex. PW1/D. PW2 is the prosecutrix and she has deposed that on 12.04.13 at about 8.30 pm, she went to the public tap at FBlock, Kamla Nehru Camp for fetching water. The accused came there to fetch water. There was a long queue. She started filling her bucket out of turn on which accused got angry and caught her hand. She slapped him and raised noise. She returned to home and informed her mother. Someone had informed the police. Police came and recorded her statement which is Ex.PW2/A. She has proved her statement SC No. 225/13 Page 2of 6 3 recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C as Ex. PW2/B and also that the accused was arrested on her identification vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/C. In cross examination by Ld. APP, PW2 has denied the suggestion that on 12.04.13, the accused caught her hand and looked at her with evil eye and started taking her to the park and when she raised noise, he left her and ran away. She has also denied the suggestion that the accused was harassing her prior to the incident and also used to stare at her.
PW3 Haidar Ali is the father of the prosecutrix and has deposed that the prosecutrix is aged about 16 years. On 12.05.13 at about 8.30 pm, the prosecutrix went to fetch the water from nearby public tap. There was a long queue and the accused had also come there to fetch water. A quarrel took place between the prosecutrix and the accused and he caught the hand of the prosecutrix during the quarrel. The prosecutrix returned to the house and told him and her mother about the incident and he informed the police.
In cross examination by Ld. APP, PW3 has denied the suggestion that he stated to the police that the accused caught the hand of the prosecutrix and did "Chedkhani" with her.
In cross examination by the accused, PW3 has deposed that he was not present at the spot when the incident took place.
PW6 Shri Purshotam Pathak has proved the statement of the prosecutrix recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW2/B and his certificate as Ex. PW6/D. PW7 SI Bahadur Singh is the investigating officer of the case and SC No. 225/13 Page 3of 6 4 he has deposed that on 12.5.13 on receiving of DD No. 29A, he along with Ct. Mahender went to Kamla Nehru Camp, Kirti Nagar. At the spot, he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix which is Ex. PW2/A. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW7/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Mahender. He prepared the site plan Ex. PW7/B at the instance of prosecutrix. On the next day, he along with Ct. Sandeep and the prosecutrix went to the house of the accused where the accused was arrested on the identification of the prosecutrix vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/C. PW4 Ct. Mahender Kumar and PW5 Ct. Sandeep Kumar has joined the investigation with PW7 and has supported his testimony.
5. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no evidence on record to prove that the accused has committed the offence of sexual harassment as the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution. On these grounds, it is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case, so the accused be acquitted.
On the other hand, Ld. APP has argued that from the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
6. PW2 is the prosecutrix and she is the material witness of the case. She has deposed that she went to the public tap at FBlock, Kamla Nehru Camp for fetching water. The accused came there to fetch water. There was a long queue. She started filling her bucket out of turn on which accused got angry and caught her hand. She slapped him.
SC No. 225/13 Page 4of 6 5 In cross examination by Ld. APP, PW2 has denied the suggestion that the accused caught her hand and looked at her with evil eye and started taking her to the park and also that the accused was harassing her prior to the incident.
PW3 who is the father of the prosecutrix has deposed in his cross examination that he was not present at the spot when the incident took place. He is not the eye witness to the alleged incident.
PW1, PW4, PW5 and PW7 are the police officials and they are not the witnesses to the alleged incident.
7. Section 11 of POCSO Act reads as follows :
Sexual harassment : A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent
(iv) repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means.
From the testimony of PW2 it is evident that there was a quarrel between PW2 and the accused on the issue of fetching water from the tap. In that quarrel, the accused has caught her hand PW2 has denied that the accused has caught her hand and looked at her with evil eye and started taking her to the park and he was harassing her prior to the incident. PW2 has not supported the case of the prosecution on the material facts which constitute the sexual harassment. There is nothing in the testimony of PW2 to prove that the accused has caught the hand of PW2 with sexual intent.
8. In view of the above discussion, from the evidence on record, the SC No. 225/13 Page 5of 6 6 prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has caught the hand of the prosecutrix with sexual intent. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 12 of POCSO Act.
Announced in the open court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta)
today i.e. on 14.11.14 Additional Sessions Judge01/West
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
SC No. 225/13 Page 6of 6