Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit Kumar on 27 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF
SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE01, SPECIAL COURT (POCSO), SOUTH, NEW DELHI
CISSC No.6776/16
FIR No. 149/13
PS : Fatehpur Beri
In the matter of:
State
versus
Rohit Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahabir
R/o House No. 52, Nandu Mohalla,
Dera Village, New Delhi
........... Accused
Date of Institution : 25.07.2013
Date of Reserving judgment : Not reserved
Date of pronouncement : 27.03.2018
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case, in which, accused Rohit Kumar has been charged and faced trial for commission of offences punishable under CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 1 of 29 sections 354 of the IPC and sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act 2012, on the allegations that he outraged the modesty of a minor girl of 17 years of age, namely, 'S' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) (hereinafter referred to as "victim'/prosecutrix") and also sexually assaulted her by forcibly kissing her.
2. The State machinery came into force on receipt of DD No. 17A at PS Fatehpur Beri regarding harassment caused by a boy to a girl by showing a knife on 20.04.2013, pursuant to which, HC Gulab reached at the spot, where the complainant/victim 'S' met him and he recorded the statement of victim 'S' wherein she stated that, "She is residing along with her parents at Derra Village, New Delhi (full address is withheld in order to conceal her identity and same is mentioned at Sl. No.1 in the list of the witnesses attached with the police report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C) and is studying in 12 th Class in a Govt. CoEd School at Dera Village, New Delhi. On 20.04.2013, she along with her friends namely, Shelly and Sonika was coming to home after taking half day leave from school and at about 11.30 AM, when CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 2 of 29 they reached near Shiv Mandir, Dera Village, Rohit who is also studying in her school came to her, he was having was cut injury in his right hand and blood was oozing out from his hand. He suddenly caught hold of her hand and asked her to have friendship with him otherwise he would die and he was forcibly kissing her. The other students got rescued her from his clutches and in this process her clothes and handkerchief got stained with blood of Rohit. She got perplexed and she along with her friend Sonika went to the house of Sonika, where she washed her chunni which was heavily blood stained. After sometime, her uncle 'C' reached there and took her to her home. Thereafter, they called the police at 100 number. The victim has alleged that Rohit has molested her and committed obscene act with her and legal action may be taken against him.
3. After recording the statement of the victim, the alleged boy, namely, Rohit Kumar was interrogated by HC Gulab Singh and since Rohit Kumar appeared to be a juvenile, instead of lodging an FIR, a DD entry vide DD No. 66B dated 20.04.2013 u/s 354A IPC CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 3 of 29 was registered. During inquiry, case property (blood stained clothes of victim) were seized and her medical examination was conducted. Witnesses were examined and Rohit was apprehended and medically examined and after preparing his social background report, he was handed over to his father pursuant to an undertaking given by his father. Subsequently, a report along with necessary documents pertaining to age of accused Rohit was submitted to Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)II, Delhi Gate, New Delhi for further necessary action. Ms. Geetanjali Goel, Principal Magistrate, JJBII vide order dated 01.06.2013 after considering date of birth of Rohit as 07.12.1990, declared him as adult. Consequently, present FIR u/s 354A IPC and 12 of POCSO Act was registered and further investigation was carried out. During investigation, accused was arrested and statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C were recorded and after completion of investigation, final police report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C u/s 354A & 12 of POCSO Act was prepared and filed before the court on 25.07.2013.
4. Vide order dated 13.08.2014, charge was framed against CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 4 of 29 the accused for commission of offences punishable under sections 354 of the IPC and section 12 of the POCSO Act, and the same was read over and explained to the accused, to which, he pleaded notguilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, the Prosecution has examined 08 witnesses to prove its case, including the victim/prosecutrix as PW1.
6. It is relevant to mention here that during trial of the case, the accused has admitted the correctness and genuineness of the MLC No. C/71493 dated 20.04.2013 Ex. PW8/F prepared by Dr. Shravan Kumar, JR, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi with regard to medical examination of the victim and the MLC No. 363174 dated 20.04.2013 prepared by Dr. Muniraj Patel with regard to his medical examination and same was exhibited as Ex. PX. Ld. Prosecutor has also dropped one witness namely SI Jaivir from the list of witnesses.
7. PW1 the victim 'S' is the complainant and crucial witness of the prosecution on whose statement, the present FIR was CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 5 of 29 registered. Her testimony shall be critically evaluated in the later part of the judgment.
8. PW2 is HC Shiv Lal who recorded the FIR in the present case copy of which is Ex. PW2/A on the basis of rukka prepared by HC Gulab Singh.
9. PW3 is 'CK' (the paternal uncle of the victim) who made call to the police at 100 number. He deposed that on 20.04.2013 at about 12.00 noon when he was present at his house, one boy Gaurav came to his house and informed that his niece (the victim) was at the house of Sonika, her friend and he should take her from there. He further deposed that Gaurav also informed him that his niece had gone to the house of Sonika as she was eve teased by a boy and she had no other place to go except the house of Sonika. He further deposed that he reached the house of Sonika and saw that his niece was not in normal condition and on his asking, her niece told him that when she was coming from the school to the house, then on the way, one Rohit CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 6 of 29 had committed eve teasing with her. He further deposed that he brought his niece to the house and made a call to the police at 100 number.
10. PW4 is SI Amit Chaudhary to whom the investigation of this case was assigned on 04.06.2013 and thereafter he recorded the statement of witnesses on 06.06.2013 and after completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court.
11. PW5 Gaurav Tanwar who was classmate of the victim 'S' when she was studying in 9 th class deposed that he did not remember anything about the incident that happened in the year 2013 as nothing had happened in his presence and he even did not come to know anything about the incident. He further deposed that police had met him in the year 2013 but he did not remember the date when the police met him. He also deposed that police had made inquires from him but he did not tell anything to the police.
CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 7 of 29
12. PW5 Gaurav Tanwar was put some leading questions by Ld. Prosecutor as he was resiling from his earlier statement wherein he denied all the suggestions put to him and denied the case of the prosecution.
13. PW6 is 'Sonika', the friend of the victim with whom the victim had gone to her house after the alleged incident. She deposed that in the year 2013, she was studying in 12th Class, in a Govt. School, Village Dera, New Delhi. The victim 'S' and Shelly were also studying in the same class and accused Rohit was also studying in their school. She further deposed that on 06.06.2013, when they were returning to their home from the school, the victim 'S' met them on the way at about 11.30 AM whose clothes were stained with the blood and she was weeping. She further deposed that when she asked the victim as to why she was weeping, the victim told her that some boy had molested her and thereafter, she took the victim to her house. After sometime uncle of the victim came to her house and took her with him. She further deposed that the victim had not told her CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 8 of 29 the name of the boy who had molested her.
14. PW6 was also put some leading questions by the Ld. Prosecutor as she deposed in contradiction to her previous statement, wherein, she also denied the prosecution case.
15. PW7 is Shelly, another friend of the victim who allegedly was present with the victim on the day of incident. She deposed that while she was studying in 12th class, victim 'S' was also studying in her class. On that day, she alongwith victim 'S' and Sonika were coming from the school to their house in the lunch time and she reached her house and she did not know anything about this case.
16. PW7 Sheilly was crossexamined by the Ld. Prosecutor as she was resiling from her previous statement and in her cross examination by Ld. Prosecutor, she denied the whole case of the prosecution.
17. PW8 ASI Gulab Singh is the investigating officer (IO) of the case. On 20.04.2013, when he was posted at PS Fatehpur Beri CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 9 of 29 as Head Constable, on receipt of DD No.17A Ex. PW8/A, he reached at the spot i.e. house of the complainant (address withheld in order to conceal the identity), where he recorded the statement of the victim. Thereafter, he along with uncle of the victim and Ct. Manoj went to the house of the accused where accused was not found available and father of the accused met who produced birth certificate of accused, as per which accused Rohit Kumar was found to be juvenile. Thereafter, he requested JWO SI Jaivir Singh to reach there and the father of the accused also called the accused. After inquiry made by JWO SI Jaivir Singh, JCL Rohit Kumar was apprehended vide apprehension memo Ex.PW8/B, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/C. Child version of JCL Ex. PW8/D was also recorded and social background report Ex. PW8/E of JCL was prepared. PW8 ASI Gulab Singh further deposed that thereafter JCL was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PX and the victim was also examined vide MLC Ex. PW8/F. The JCL was handed over to his father on his undertaking Ex.PW8/G. He further deposed that uncle of the victim CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 10 of 29 produced blood stained clothes of the victim which were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/H and the site plan Ex. PW8/I was prepared at the instance of the victim and after returning to PS, DD entry 66B Ex.PW8/J was recorded. He further deposed that on 22.04.2013, JCL Rohit was produced before JJBII, Delhi Gate and on his application Ex. PW8/K, the principal of the first attended school of JCL issued a certificate Ex.PW8/L regarding his date of birth and also produced admission form Ex.PW8/M and photocopy of relevant page of the admission register Ex.PW8/N as per which date of birth of the JCL is 07.12.1990 and he was major. He prepared report Ex.PW8/O and filed the same before JJBII and JJBII vide order dated 01.06.2013 Ex.PW8/P declared the JCL Rohit Kumar major. PW8 IO/ ASI Gulab Singh further deposed that during investigation, he also collected photocopy of marksheet of the victim Ex. PW8/Q as per which she was minor and thereafter he made endorsement on the statement of the victim vide Ex.PW8/R and handed over the same CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 11 of 29 to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR. He further deposed that accused Rohit Kumar was produced before the court concerned and on his application Ex. PW8/S, the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/T and thereafter the case file was marked to SI Amit Chaudhary.
18. On 26.03.2018, accused Rohit Kumar was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his statement was recorded. During his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the correctness of the incriminating evidence appearing against him during the prosecution evidence. The accused stated that his father does the work of plumber and he had done fitting work in the house of the uncle of the victim. The uncle of the victim did not pay the labour charges of the plumbing work to his father and when his father was insisting to pay the labour charges, the uncle of the victim got him falsely implicated in this case through the victim, otherwise he has not done anything wrong with the victim. The accused further stated that he had sustained injuries on his wrist because he had two moles on his CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 12 of 29 wrist and he was trying to remove them by a blade.
19. It is relevant to note here that when the matter was fixed for final arguments, it was observed vide order dated 27.03.2018 that section 8 r/w section 7 of POCSO Act is also attracted in the present case because as per the version of the victim, the accused had made physical contact with her by catching hold of her hand and forcibly kissing her. Accordingly, additional charge for commission of offence punishable u/s 8 r/w section 7 of the POCSO Act was framed against the accused vide order dated 27.03.2018 which was read over and explained to the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. Consequent to the framing of the additional charge, opportunity was given to the prosecution as well as to the accused to lead evidence or to recall any witness, however, both sides submitted that they did not want to lead any evidence or recall any witness pursuant to framing of additional charge. Accordingly, final arguments were heard.
20. Mr. Inder Kumar, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the State has drawn my attention through the testimonies of the CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 13 of 29 prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents exhibited during the examination of the prosecution witnesses, and submitted that there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused for the commission of the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and 8/12 of POCSO Act.
21. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused has not committed any offence as alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the victim at the behest of her uncle. He further argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused and therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted.
22. I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
23. The first point for determination is: What was the age of the victim on the day of the incident?
CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 14 of 29
24. The prosecution has claimed the age of the victim to be 17 years on the day of incident i.e. 20.04.2013. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the marksheet of 11th Class of the victim which is Ex. PW8/Q which shows the date of birth of the victim as 10.11.1996. The accused has not disputed the said document and the fact that victim was minor on the day of incident. In view of same, it stands proved that on the day of incident i.e. 20.04.2013, the victim was below the age of 18 years and was a child as defined u/s 2 (d) of POCSO Act.
25. The second point for determination is: Whether the accused has sexually assaulted the victim by catching hold of her hand and by forcibly kissing her and also sexually harassed her.
26. The criminal law was set into motion on the basis of statement made by the victim which is Ex. PW1/A. In the said statement Ex. PW1/A, the victim has alleged that on 20.04.2013, when she was returning home from her school along with her friends, on the CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 15 of 29 way, accused came to her having cut injury on his hand and blood was oozing out from his hand. He caught hold of her hand and asked her for friendship else he would die. She has also alleged that the accused was also forcibly kissing her and she was rescued by her friends and in order to save herself she went to the house of her friend Sonika, where her uncle came and took her with him to her house.
27. However, the victim when appeared in the witness box as PW1, did not support her version made in the statement Ex. PW1/A. She deposed that on 20.04.2013 at about 11.30 am, she was going from her school to her home alongwith her friends namely Shelly and Sonika. On that day, she had a quarrel with accused Rohit as he wanted to make friendship with her and she refused for the same and her uncle made a complaint to the police. She further deposed that police made inquiries from her and she was under lot of stress. She had been asked to sign at a paper which she signed and she was not read over. She though admitted her signatures on the statement Ex. PW1/A, but she denied having any knowledge about the contents CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 16 of 29 of the said statement.
28. During testimony of PW1 the victim, permission was sought by Ld. Prosecutor to crossexamine her as she was resiling from her earlier statement made to the police. Permission was granted and in her crossexamination by Ld. SPP, she admitted that accused Rohit and she were studying in the same school and incident had taken place outside the school. She also admitted that the accused had a cut injury in his hand. She denied the suggestion that the accused tried to kiss her. She admitted that her handkerchief and other clothes got stained with blood of accused and further that she had gone to the house of Sonia. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the police officer that accused had forcibly kissed her and she wanted to take action against him. She further denied the suggestion that she was read over her statement by the police officer and she had understood her statement very well before signing the same. She admitted that her clothes were seized by the police. She denied the suggestion that she has concealed the material facts of the case in order to help the CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 17 of 29 accused or that on account of a compromise between the accused and her, she was suppressing the correct facts of the case.
29. In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she admitted that accused Rohit was already injured when she saw him. She further admitted that the accused Rohit did not insist her that if she would not become his friend, he would kill himself. She also admitted that document Ex. PW1/A was blank when she signed it. She further admitted that she had no grievance or complaint against accused Rohit of any kind of misbehaviour.
30. From the aforesaid testimony of PW1 the victim who is the star and material witness of the prosecution, it is apparent that she has not supported the prosecution case at all. Though she admitted her signatures on the statement Ex. PW1/A, but she denied having any knowledge of the contents of the same. In fact, in her cross examination she admitted that the said document Ex.PW1/A was blank when she signed the same and same was not read over to her. She categorically stated that she was under lot of stress and she had CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 18 of 29 been asked to sign at a paper which she signed She denied that she told to the police that accused was insisting her to have friendship with her otherwise he would kill himself or that accused was forcibly kissing her.
31. Another material witness examined by the prosecution is PW3 'CK' (uncle of the victim) who in his examinationinchief has deposed that on 20.04.2013 when he was present in his house, Gaurav came to his house and informed that his niece (the victim) was at the house of her friend Sonika as she was eve teased by a boy. He further deposed that when he reached at the house of Sonika, the victim was not in normal condition and on inquiry, her niece (the victim) told him that accused Rohit had committed eve teasing with her on the way when she was returning to home from the school.
32. In his crossexamination, PW3 'CK' stated that her niece and accused Rohit were studying in the same school at Dera Village and no quarrel took place between his niece and Rohit in his presence. CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 19 of 29
33. The aforesaid testimony of PW3 'CK' makes it clear that he is not an eye witness to the incident and he is only hearsay witness who was told about the incident by one Gaurav and the victim. As per the version of PW3 'CK', on 20.04.2013, one Gaurav came to his house and informed him that victim was at the house of her friend Sonika as she was eve teased by a boy and consequent thereto, he had gone to the house of Sonika, where on inquiry, the victim told him about the act of eve teasing by the accused with her.
34. However, as noted above, the victim has denied the act of eve teasing by the accused in her testimony. Similarly, Gaurav who has been examined by the prosecution as PW5 deposed that he did not remember anything about the incident as nothing had happened in his presence. He even did not come to know anything about the incident. He categorically stated that police had made inquiries from him but he did not tell anything to the police.
35. PW5 was put some leading questions by the Ld. Prosecutor and at that time also he stated that he did not remember whether the CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 20 of 29 police had recorded his statement on 06.06.2013 or not. He stated that he knew Rohit as he is resident of his village. He did not know if on 20.04.2013, he was going towards bus stand in Dera village for making his resume or that at about 11.30 am when he reached near Shiv Mandir, he had seen that Rohit had caught hold the victim 'S' or that at that time, accused Rohit was bleeding from his hand. He denied the suggestion that he had seen that the victim girl was rescued by two other girls or that at that time, he asked Rohit to go his house from there. He further denied the suggestion that thereafter the victim had gone to the house of her friend Sonika or that at that time victim S was frightened. He further denied the suggestion that after that he had reached the house of the victim and told the entire incident to her uncle, namely C. He further denied the suggestion that he stated all these facts in his statement to the police. He also denied the suggestion that the incident had taken place in his presence.
36. In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW5 Gaurav stated that he was not called by the IO in the police station for CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 21 of 29 the purpose of inquiry. He further stated that his statement was not recorded by the IO nor his signatures were obtained anywhere.
37. Thus, version of PW3 'CK' (uncle of the victim) that he was told about the act of eve teasing by the accused with the victim cannot be relied upon. He has claimed that the victim herself and Gaurav had told him about the act of eve teasing by the accused with the victim but both PW1 the victim and PW5 Gaurav have categorically denied the same.
38. The prosecution has also examined Sonkia as PW6 who has allegedly witnessed the incident but she also did not support the case of the prosecution. In her evidence, she has stated that on 06.06.2013 when they were returning to their home from the school, the victim "S" met them on the way at about 11.30 AM whose clothes were stained with the blood and she was weeping. She further deposed that when she asked the victim as to why she was weeping, the victim told her that some boy had molested her and thereafter, she took the victim to her house. After sometime uncle of the victim came to her CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 22 of 29 house and took her with him. She categorically stated the victim had not told her the name of the boy who had molested her.
39. PW6 was also put some leading questions as she deposed in contradiction to her previous statement, wherein, she denied that it was on 20.04.2013 the incident had occurred with victim "S". She admitted that on 20.04.2013, she along with her friend Shaily and victim 'S' were returning to home from school after taking half day leave. Voluntarily, she stated that she was returning on 06.06.2013 from school to home with her friend Jyoti. She admitted that on the day of incident, they had reached near Shiv Mandir at about 11.30 AM and at that time, she had not seen that accused Rohit had come there or that he was bleeding from his right hand or that when he came there he caught hold the hand of victim 'S'. She stated that she did not know if at that time, accused Rohit asked victim 'S' for friendship, otherwise he would die or that at that time accused Rohit had started forcibly kissing victim 'S'. She denied the suggestion that she and her friend Shaily had rescued the victim 'S' from the accused. She admitted that CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 23 of 29 at that time Gaurav S/o Dharmender had come there and asked accused Rohit to go from there. She further admitted that at that time victim 'S' was very much perturbed and she brought the victim to her house. She stated that the police had recorded her statement on 06.06.2013 but she did not know what was written by the police. She stated that she did not know if the police had read over the said statement to her after recording the same. She denied the suggestion that the incident had taken place on 20.04.2013 and she is deliberately suppressing the correct date of incident. She further denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place on 06.06.2013 as deposed by her or that she has been won over by the accused and that is why she is not disclosing the true facts.
40. In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW6 Sonika categorically stated that she did not know how the clothes of the victim 'S' were stained with blood. She further stated that in her presence, the incident of molestation had not taken place.
41. The another friend of the victim, namely, Shelly who has CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 24 of 29 been examined by the prosecution as PW7 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. She in her evidence has stated that she did not know anything about this case and did not remember the date, month and the year of incident. In her crossexamination by Ld. Prosecutor she denied the suggestion that on 20.04.2013, at about 10.30am, when they reached near Shiv Mandir, accused Rohit came there or that at that time, the blood was oozing out from his right hand and he had caught hold the hand of victim 'S' or that accused told S that he wants to make friendship with her otherwise he would die or that he forcibly kissed S. She further denied the suggestion that she alongwith Sonia saved the victim S from the clutches of accused or that in the meantime Gaurav also came there and he told Rohit to go to his house. She further denied the suggestion that Sonia took the victim 'S' to her house or that the uncle of S came there and took the victim to her house.
42. From the aforesaid testimony of PW1 the victim and other material witnesses, the allegations against the accused as CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 25 of 29 charged against him are not proved on record. PW1 the victim who is the star and material witness of the prosecution on whose statement the present FIR was registered against the accused did not support the case of the prosecution. In fact, she stated that she did not know the contents of her statement Ex. PW1/A as she was not read over the same and she signed the same on blank paper. She categorically stated that she had no grievance or complaint against accused Rohit of any kind of misbehaviour. Similarly, testimony of PW3 'CK' (the uncle of the victim) is of no avail as he is not an eye witness to the incident and his version that he was told about the incident of eve teasing by the accused with the victim has been belied by the victim herself and PW5 Gaurav. The other material witnesses examined by the prosecutions i.e. PW5 Gaurav, PW6 Sonika and PW7 Shelly who are eyewitnesses to the incident as per the prosecution case have also not supported the initial version of the victim Ex. PW1/A on the basis of which criminal law was set into motion and FIR was registered against the accused.
CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 26 of 29
43. On the other hand, the defence of the accused has been that his father who was doing the work of plumber had done the plumbing work in the house of uncle of the victim, but the uncle of the victim did not pay the labour charges to his father and when his father insisted to pay the labour charges, the uncle of the victim got him falsely implicated in the present case through the victim.
44. The defence of the accused appears to be plausible because the victim has not levelled any allegations in her testimony that accused had cut his hand and insisted to have friendship with him otherwise he would kill himself or that he was forcibly kissing her. The witness to the incident i.e. PW5 Gaurav, PW6 Sonika and PW7 Shelly have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution including the police witnesses are only formal witnesses and from their testimonies also, guilt of the accused is not proved on record. The accused has also explained the cut injuries in his wrist that he was trying to remove the moles and during that process he sustained cut injuries in his hand. CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 27 of 29 The said version of the accused cannot be disbelieved because the PWs have not alleged that accused had cut his hand in their presence while insisting the victim to have friendship with him.
45. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the testimony of PW1 the victim and other material witnesses, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused that he sexually assaulted the victim by catching hold of her hand on the way and by forcibly kissing her. Hence, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused Rohit Kumar, he is not found guilty of committing the offence punishable under sections 354 of IPC and section 12 & 8 of POCSO Act as charged against him and he is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Rohit Kumar is acquitted of the said offences. However, he is required to comply with the provisions u/s 437A Cr.P.C by furnishing the bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/ with one surety of like amount, which shall remain in force for a period of six months. His previous bail bond furnished u/s 439 Cr.P.C are cancelled and the surrey is discharged. Bail bond CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 28 of 29 u/s 437A Cr.P.C. furnished by him. Same is accepted and shall remain in force for a period of six months.
46. A copy of this judgment be sent to the District Magistrate concerned.
47. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 27 of March 2018).
th Additional Sessions Judge01 Special Court (POCSO), South Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CISSC No. 6776/16 "State v. Rohit Kumar." Page No. 29 of 29