Delhi District Court
Sc No. 95/17 State vs . Bhagwan Dass on 13 April, 2018
SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA MAINI
ASJ01 / SPECIAL JUDGE : POCSO ACT ( NORTH ):
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:
(Sessions Case No. 95/17)
Unique Identification No. DLNT010021862017
FIR No. 182/16
Police Station Swaroop Nagar
Chargesheet filed 506 IPC
Under Section 3/4 POCSO Act &
23 JJ Act
Charges framed 6 POCSO Act in alternative
Under Section u/s 377 IPC
75 & 79 Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 &
506 IPC
State V/s Bhagwan Dass
S/o Girdhari Lal
R/o H.No. BJ39,
East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
......Accused
Date of institution 18.02.2017
Date of arguments 13.04.2018
Judgment Pronounced on 13.04.2018
Decision Acquitted
Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 1 of 17
SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass
J U D G M E N T
1.The accused Bhagwan Dass is facing trial in the present case on allegations of having committed repeated penetrative sexual assault / carnal intercourse upon the victim boy SK, aged between 1618 years, and also having employed the said victim boy SK in his factory, treating him with cruelty and having kept him in confinement withholding his earnings and also having threatened him.
2. The facts in brief, which are borne out from the record are that the victim boy SK, aged between 1618 years, was residing in Sindhi Colony, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi and was working in Naveen Filter Factory, Gali No. 7, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi, owned by the accused Bhagwan Dass. The work profile of victim demands to serve watertea etc and his job timings were from 9 AM to PM. About six months prior to the incident reported to the police, the victim was doing cleaning work in the office of the accused, situated in the said factory, when the accused reached there and threatened him to falsely implicate him (victim) in a case of theft else he would have to do as per his desires, to which the victim agreed. Thereafter, the accused removed the pant and underwear of the victim as well as his own pant and underwear, and compelled the victim to have sex with him, whereafter the victim inserted his penis in the anus of the accused. Accused threatened the victim not to disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter, the accused forced the victim to commit the said wrong act / carnal intercourse with him 23 times on different occasions. About 20 days prior to the lodging of the incident to the police, the accused again forced the victim to have carnal intercourse with him, Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 2 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass whereafter the victim stopped going for work to the factory, pursuant whereto the mother of the victim asked him the reason for not going to factory, and the victim disclosed the entire incident to his mother, who took her to an NGO official Ms. Pramila Sharma, who in turn took the victim and his mother to Police Station, where the statement of the victim was recorded on 02.05.2016. The victim was got medically examined at BJRM Hospital vide MLC no. 116701/16. On the basis of the statement of the victim, IO SI Sajjan Singh prepared the rukka and got the case registered u/s 3/4 POCSO Act and 23 JJ Act. IO SI Sajjan Singh alongwith the victim and his father inspected the spot i.e. the factory but the same was found locked.
3. On 03.05.2016, the victim boy SK was produced before the Ld. MM, and on an appropriate application moved by the IO, Ld. MM recorded the statement of the victim SK u/s 164 CrPC. The Bone Age Determination Test of the victim was got conducted, as per which the age of the victim was found between 1618 years. During the course of investigation, the accused Bhagwan Dass was admitted to anticipatory bail by the court concerned, accused was formally arrested and released on bail. IO recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court.
4. On appearance, the accused was supplied with the copies of the chargesheet and other documents. After perusal of the chargesheet, the documents, and hearing Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused, since primafacie case against the accused was made out, he was charged for the offences punishable u/s 6 POCSO Act in Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 3 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass alternative u/s 377 IPC, u/s 75 & 79 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and 506 IPC, on 15.03.2017, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the victim SK, as PW 1, wherein he stated his age to be 17 years. After conducting preliminary examination of the victim by putting certain questions to him to assess the competency of victim child to give rational answers, on being satisfied, the statement of the victim was recorded, wherein he deposed as under :
"MAIN APNE MAMMI PAPA, APNE BADE BHAI OR CHHOTE BAHAN KE SATH SWAROOP NAGAR MAIN PICHHLE DHAEE SAAL SE RAHE RAHA HUAN OR MEIN MULJIM HAJIR ADALAT (correctly identified to wooden partition) JINKA NAAM BHAGWAN DASS KATARIA HAIN OR JINKI NAVEEN FILTER KE NAAM SEY CAR MEIN LAGNE WALE FILTER BANANE KI FACTORY MEIN ES GHATNA SEY 67 MAHINE PAHLE SEY KAAM KARTA THA. JO KI MERI DUTY OFFICE MEIN CHAI PAANI LANA OR CAR ITYADI SAAF KARNA THA. MUJHE Rs.3000/ or Rs.3500/MULJIM SEY APNI TANKHA KE BACHE HUYE PAISE LENE THE JO KI MULJIM NE KAHA KI MAINE KAFEE CHHUTIYA KI HAI OR IS BABBAT MUJLIM NEY MERI TANKHA MEIN SEY PAISE KATE JO KI MULJIM NE MERE PAISE DENE SEY MANA KAR DIYA. JO MULJIM KE FACTORY MAIN EK GOVIND NAAM KA DRIVER THA Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 4 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass TOH USNE MUJHE BADKA DIYA KI MULJIM KE BARE MEIN JHUTHA BHADKA DIYA. JO MUJHE PAISO KI JAROORAT THI ISLIYE MAINE THANE MEIN JAKAR KAH DIYA KI BHAGWAN DASS KATARIA MERE SEY GALAT KAAM KARWATA THA. JO POLICE NEY MERA BAYAN LIKHA THA JO KI Ex.PW1/A HAIN JIS PAR 'A' STHAN PAR MERE SIGNATURE HAIN. MUJHE POLICE DWARA BJRM HOSPITAL BHI LEY JAYA GAYA THA JAHAN MERI DOCTORY BHI HUYI THI OR MLC PAR MAINE APNA LTI OR RTI BHI LAGAYA THA JO KI MLC Ex.PW1/B HAI JIS PAR 'A' OR 'B' STHAN PAR MERA ANGUTHA HAI. MERA JUDGE SAHAB KEY SAMNE BHI BAYAN LIKHA GAYA THA. At this stage, an envelope is opened sealed with the seal of AD and a statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. is taken out. The witness has been shown the statement and he identifies his signature at points A and the same is Ex. PW1/C. MUJHE OR KUCH NAHI KAHNA.
6. Since the witness / PW 1 had resiled from his earlier statement, on the request of the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he was allowed to cross examine the witness. In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he deposed as under :
"MAIN POLICE STATION APNE PAPA KE SATH GAYA THA. OR APNE PAPA KE SATH OR POLICE WALO KE SATH DOCTORY KE LIYE GAYA THA. YEH THIK HAI KI MEIN POLICE STATION GAYYA THA OR HOSPITAL Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 5 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass GAYA THA TAB WEH KATHITH GOVIND HAMARE SATH NAHIN THA. YEH THIK HAIN KI MEIN APNE MAMMI PAPA KE AAGE JHUTH NAHI BOLTA. YEH THIK YEH KI MAINE APNE MAMMI PAPA KO IS GHATNA KE BARE MAIN JAISA MERE SAATH HUWA THA WAISA HI BATAYA. PHIR KAHA JAISA MUJHE GOVIND NEY BATAYA THA WAISA MAINE APNE MAMMI PAPA KO BATAYA THA.
Q TUMNE KAHA KI KATHITH GOVING KE KAHNE PAR POLICE KO JHUTH BOLA THA JO KI MULJIM KO FASANE KE LIYE, PHIR TUMNE APNE MAMMI PAPA KE SAMNE JHUTH KYON BOLA, WOH TO TUMHARI BAAT KO MULJIM KE KHILAF KUCH KARWAHI NAHI KAR SAKTE THE ?
Ans. MUJHSEY GALTI HO GAYI.
YEH THIK HAI KI JAISA MAINE POLICE KO BATAYA THA POLICE NEY WAISA HI MERE BAYAN Ex.PW1/A MEIN LIKHA THA OR US BAYAN KO SAMAJH KAR OR THIK MANKAR APNE 'A' STHAN PAR DASTAKHAT KIYE THE. YEH THIK HAI KI MAINE APNE BAYAN Ex.PW1/A MEIN YAHAY BATAYA THA KI FIR SEY 6 MAH PAHLE MULJIM KI FACTORY KE OFFICE MEIN AAYA OR US WAQT MEIN SAFAI KAR RAHA THA TO MULJIM NEY MERA HATH PAKDA OR MUJHSE KAHA KI MEINE USKE PAISO KE GALLE MEIN HATH DALA HEIN OR WOH ABHI POLICE KO BULATA HAIN OR YEH BHI KAHA KI AABHI MUJHE OR MERE MAMMI PAPA KO PAKADWATA HAI. MAINE Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 6 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass YEH BHI POLICE KO APNE BAYAN MEIN BATAYE KI JIS KARAN MEIN DAR GAYA OR PHIR MULJIM KE KAHNE PAR APNI PANT OR APNA KACHCHA UTARA OR MULJIM NE APNI BHI PANT KHOLI OR APNA KACHCHA UTARA. YEH THIK HAI KI MAINE POLICE KO APNE DIYE BAYAN MEIN YEH BHI BATAYA THA KI MULJIM NEY MUJHE KAHA KI MEIN USKE SATH SEX KAROON OR JAB MAINE MANA KIYA TO MULJIM NEY POLICE KA DAR DIKHAYA OR ESI KARAN SEY MULJIM SEY SEX KARNE KI HAAN KI. MAINE POLICE KO APNE DIYE BAYAN MEIN BATAYA THA KI MULJIM TABLE PAR HATH RAKHKAR JHUK GAYA OR MEIN MULJIM KE PICHE KHADA HOKAR APNA LING MULJIM KE GUDDA MEIN DALKAR USKE SATH SEX KIYA OR ESKE BAAD MULJIM NEY MUJHE DARAYA OR DHAMKAYA KI YEH BAAT MEIN KISSI KO NA BATAOO JO KI YEH BAAT MAINE KISSI KO NAHI BATAYEE. MAINE POLICE KO YAHEY BHI BATAYA THA KI MULJIM NE ESSI TARAH SEY MERE SATH 23 BAAR GALAT KAAM KARAYA THA OR DARAYA THA OR ES FIR SEY 20 DEEN PAHLE BHI MULJIM NEY MERE SATH ESEE TARAH SEY GALAT KAAM KARAWAYA THA. YEH THIK HAI KI MAINE POLICE KO DIYE APNE BAYAN Ex.PW1/A MAIN YAH BHI BATAYA THA KI MAINE FACTORY JANA BAND KAR DIYA OR MERI MAMMI KEY BAAR BAAR PUCHHNE PAR MAINE MULJIM KE HARKATON KE BAARE MAIN BATAYA THA. YEH THIK HAI KI MERI MAMMI MUJHE NGO MS Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 7 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass PAROMILA SHARMA KE PAAS LEY GAYI THIS JO SAARI BATEIN UNHE BHI BATAEE THI. YEH THIK HAI KI NGO MS PROMILA SHARMA BHI MOZOOD THI JAB POLICE NE MERA BAYAN EX.PW1/A LIKHA.
YEH THIK HAI KI DOCTORY JANCH KE SAMAY BHI MAINE DOCTOR KO BATAYA THA KI EK JAYADA UMAR KA VYAKTI USEY SEXUALY EXPLOIT KARTA HAI. YEH THIK HAI KI MAINE JUDGE SAHAB KO BAYAN DIYE THE USME MAINE JO BAATE POLICE KO BATAEE THI WOH SAB MAINE JUDGE SAHAB KO NAHIN BATAYEE THI. YEH THIK HAI KI MERA MULJIM SEY RAZINAMA HO GAYA THA. YEH KAHNA GALAT HAI KI KYOKI MULJIM NEY MERE SATH RAZINAMA KAR LIYA HAI ES KARAN SEY MAINE AAJ ADALAT MEIN THIK BAYAN NAHIN DIYE HAIN. YEH KAHNA GALAT HAIN KI MAIN MULJIM KO BACHANE KE LIYE AAJ ADALAT MEIN YEH JHOOTH BOL RAHA HOON KI MAINE KATHITH GOVIND KEY KAHNE PAR AISA BAYAN DIYA THA. YEH KAHNA GALAT HAI KI MULJIM NEY MERE SATH GALAT HARKAT KI THI OR ESI KARAN SEY MAINE POLICE KO NGO OFFICIAL KEY SAMNE SAHI BAYAN DIYA THA.
7. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the victim as PW 1 deposed as under :
"YEH THIK HAI JO MAINE BAYAN POLICE KO Ex.PW1/A DIYE THE WOH BAYAN DRIVER GOVIND KE KAHNE PAR Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 8 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass JHUTHE DIYE THE. YEH THIK HAI KI MULJIM NEY MERE SATH KOEE GALAT HARKAT NAHIN KEE."
8. Mr. R, father of the victim entered the witness box as PW 2 (examined on 11.12.2017) and deposed that he has six children and victim SK, aged about 17 years, is living with him and in the year 2016, he (victim) was working in the factory of accused Bhagwan Dass. He further deposed that he did not remember the exact date, but one day in the last year, he was called in the Police Station and when he alongwith his wife went to PS, he saw that some documents were being prepared in respect of his son / victim SK, and later his son / victim was also taken to BJRM Hospital. He further deposed that thereafter he and his wife were taken to the factory belonging to the accused, where Govind, who was working as driver in the said factory, told him that accused Bhagwan Dass used to do wrong act with his son / victim SK.
9. Since the witness / PW 2 had resiled from his earlier statement, on the request of the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, she was allowed to cross examine the witness. In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he admitted it to be correct that he went to PS on 02.05.2016, but denied that his son told him that accused Bhagwan Dass had been doing wrong act with him for the last about 6 months. He further denied that he has settled the matter with the accused and in order to save him, he was deposing falsely.
10. Ms. R, mother of the victim entered the witness box as PW 3 and deposed that her son S, aged about 17 years was working as peon in the Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 9 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass factory of accused Bhagwan Dass (correctly identified). She further deposed that her son was not going for his work to the factory for quite a few days and on her asking, he (victim) told her that the factory owner Bhagwan Dass was doing wrong act with him. She again deposed that her son did not want to work in the factory, and therefore he on the instigation of Govind, had lied her that accused had been doing wrong act with him. She further deposed that she was called in the police station, where the police officials obtained her signatures on blank papers, and that her son was also taken to hospital for medical examination.
11. Since the witness / PW 3 had resiled from her earlier statement, on the request of the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, she was allowed to cross examine the witness. In her cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, she denied that on 02.05.2016, on her asking, the victim told her that the owner of the factory i.e. accused Bhagwan Dass, used to compel him to commit wrong act with him, under threat that he would falsely implicate him in case of theft. She further denied that in her statement to the police Ex. PW 3/A, she told that about 20 days prior to 02.05.2016, accused Bhagwan Dass had committed wrong act with her son. She denied that she had compromised the matter with the accused and in order to save him, she was deposing falsely.
12. Sh. Harender S/o Ram Mugre entered the witness box as PW 4 and deposed that he was working as Store Keeper in Naveen Filter Factory, Gali no. 7, Swaroop Nagar, and accused Bhagwan Dass (correctly identified) is the owner of the said factory. He further deposed that in the year 2016, the victim was also working in the said factory as Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 10 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass office boy / peon, and the police made inquiries from him and his statement was recorded on 06.05.2016.
13. PW 5 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri Delhi deposed that he has been deputed by MS of the said hospital to depose in respect of MLC no. 116701, prepared by Dr. Narender, who had since left the services of the hospital, and he (PW5) can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Narender, as he had worked with him. He further deposed that on 02.05.2016 at about 7.04 PM, patient SK, aged about 16 years, male was initially examined by JR doctor, who referred the patient to SR Surgery, where Dr. Narender, Surgery SR examined the patient vide MLC already Ex. PW 1/B, and opined that there was nothing to suggest that patient cannot perform sexual act.
14. PW 6 Dr. Saurabh Singh, CMO BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi deposed that on 02.05.2016 at about 7.04 PM, patient SK, aged about 16 years, male, brought in the casualty, was medically examined vide MLC already Ex. PW 1/B by JR Dr. Gaurav Chaudhary, who was working under his supervision, and thereafter the patient was referred to SR Surgery for further opinion.
15. PW 7 Sh. Govid S/o Sh. Anant Jha deposed that he is working as driver in Naveen filter Factory, owned by accused Bhagwan Dass. He further deposed that victim SK had also worked in the said factory for about 78 months and he used to serve water and tea in the office, and later he (PW 7) came to know that on the complaint of SK, a case was registered against the accused.
Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 11 of 17
SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass
16. It would not be out of place to mention here that IO SI Sajjan Singh entered an appearance in the court and deposed that since in the present case, the FIR was lodged very late i.e. about 20 days after the last incident took place, though the samples of the victim were collected but the same were not sent to FSL, and therefore no FSL result was to be received in the instant case. He further stated that the allegations under JJ Act had been settled between the accused and the victim before the CWC, and the accused had paid a sum of Rs. 39000/ to the victim, settling all their old accounts and dues, due to which no charges under any offence under JJ Act were pressed by the prosecution.
17. The victim as well as his parents, who were cited as the material witnesses of the occurrence, by the prosecution, did not support the prosecution case and resiled from their previous alleged statements and complaint. Even on being cross examined by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, the stand of the victim and his parents remained consistent that the accused had not committed any sexual assault upon the victim. Ld. Addl. PP for the State stated that there is no other incriminating evidence, which would connect the accused Bhagwan Dass with the offences, he has been charged with and therefore recording of further prosecution evidence was not necessitated and accordingly PE was closed.
18. Since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the recording of statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with.
Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 12 of 17
SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass
19. I have heard Mr. Girish Giri, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Vishal Chopra, Ld. Counsel for the accused, scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution and have gone through the record.
20. Age of the Victim: To ascertain the age of the victim, the Bone Age Determination Test of the victim was got conducted at BJRM Hospital, and the report in this regard was placed on record. The Medical Board, which was constituted to conduct the Bone Age Determination Test of the victim, on the basis of Physical, Dental and Radiological Examination of the victim, opined that the probable age of the victim is between 16 to 18 years. The said report being a scientific one and not having been challenged, in any manner, on behalf of the accused, is accepted and accordingly it is accepted the age of the victim, at the relevant time, was between 1618 years and hence he is a "Child" within the meaning given under section 2 (d) of the POCSO Act.
21. Medical and forensic Evidence : The medical evidence, which came to the fore in the instant case, is in the form of the MLC of the victim Ex. PW 1/B, as per which the victim was medically examined at BJRM Hospital on 02.05.2016, and on his local examination no fresh visible external injury was seen and he was referred to SR Surgery. In the Surgery Department, he was examined by Dr. Narender, SR Surgery, who also opined that on local examination of the victim, no fresh injury was seen. Though the requisite samples of the victim were collected but as per the statement of the IO recorded on 13.04.2018, the samples of the victim were not sent to FSL, as the FIR in the instant case was lodged after about 20 days of the last alleged incident, and as such no FSL result Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 13 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass has come on record.
22. There is no mention in the chargesheet, whether the accused was got medically examined or not. However, in the instant case the accused was admitted to anticipatory bail by the court concerned and as per the chargesheet, after formal arrest, the accused was enlarged on bail in compliance of the orders of the court.
Thus, there is no medical or forensic evidence in the instant case to corroborate the allegations of any sexual assault having been committed upon the victim, at the hands of the accused.
TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIM AND HIS PARENTS
23. The victim SK as PW1, has categorically identified the accused to be the owner of the factory, where he was working as peon, doing the work of serving tea etc in the office and doing cleaning work. He further deposed that an amount of Rs. 3000/ or Rs. 3500/ were outstanding to be paid by his employer / accused to him towards his salary, but he was not paying the same stating that he (victim) had availed too many leaves, and was not entitled to the said amount / salary. He had further deposed that on the instigation of his colleague Govind, he got the instant false case registered against the accused. He went ahead to depose that he even told a lie to his parents regarding the incident, at the instigation of said Govind.
24. The father of the victim has also deposed that he came to know about the alleged incident, merely from said Govind, who told him that Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 14 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass accused Bhagwan Dass had committed a wrong act with his son. However, when he asked his son about the incident, he (victim) did not tell him anything. He specifically denied that his son told him that accused had committed wrong act with him twice or trice.
25. The mother of the victim in her testimony as PW 3, in one breath has stated that her son, on her inquiry as to why he was not going to factory for work, told her that accused used to do wrong act with him, but in the next breath, she deposed that her son did not want to work in the factory, and therefore at the instigation of Govind, he (victim) lied to her. She was also cross examined at length by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, but she stood on firm ground that her son did not tell her anything about the incident / sexual assault, if any, ever committed upon him, at the hands of the accused. The victim as well as her parents have specifically denied the suggestion put to them that they have settled the matter with the accused and in order to save him, they were deposing falsely.
26. The said Govind, colleague of the victim, has also entered the witness box as PW 7, but has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused, but merely deposed that he later came to know that on the complaint of victim SK, a case was registered against the accused.
27. As far as the offence punishable u/s 75 & 79 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is concerned, the IO SI Sajjan Singh, vide his statement dated 13.04.2018 has stated that the matter in this regard has been settled between the victim and the accused before the CWC and the accused had paid a sum of Rs. 39000/ Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 15 of 17 SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass to the victim settling all their old accounts and dues.
28. As such, the victim himself as well as his parents, who were the only material witnesses, on whose testimony, the case of the prosecution was hinging, did not support the prosecution case. Though all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. the victim and his parents correctly identified the accused to be the employer of the victim, but the victim, who was the best person to depose regarding the incident, if any, has specifically deposed that he had made a false complaint against the accused, as accused was not paying his outstanding salary and since he was in need of money, he got the accused falsely implicated in this case. The testimony of PW 2 and PW 3 is only hearsay and there are material contradictions in the testimony of the said two witnesses, in as much as the mother of the victim, in one breath has stated that her son told her that accused had committed wrong act with him and in the next breath she had stated that her son had told her lie on the instigation of his colleague Govind. As such, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have testified that the victim was ever subjected to any sexual assault by the accused.
29. All the key witnesses, examined by the prosecution, on which the case of the prosecution was based, have denied the happening of the alleged incident, in totality. Victim and her parents were the material witnesses of the incident and they not having supported the prosecution case and having given a clean chit to the accused, there is nothing that survives in the prosecution case, which falls flat on its face, failing to bring home the guilt of accused.
Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 16 of 17
SC No. 95/17 State Vs. Bhagwan Dass
30. Conclusion : From the aforesaid discussions, allegations against accused are not proved. Accordingly, accused Bhagwan Dass stands acquitted for the offences, he has been charged with. Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled and his surety is discharged. Documents of the surety, if any retained on record, be released to him on appropriate application being moved by him.
Accused is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10000/ under provisions of Section 437A CrPC, with one surety in the like amount.
Since victim has not suffered any injury or loss, either physical, mental or psychological, he has not been granted any compensation as per provisions of section 33 (8) POCSO Act.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. on 13.04.2018 (SEEMA MAINI)
ASJ01/SPECIAL JUDGE : POCSO Act :
North : Rohini/Delhi : 13.04.2018
Judgment : FIR No. 182/16 page 17 of 17