Delhi District Court
State vs Vidha Sagar Page No. 1 on 19 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH.ATUL KUMAR GARG, ASJ - 01
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 105/2/15
State
..... Complainant
Versus
Vidha Sagar,
S/o Sh. Bhabhuti Singh,
R/o Village Shahbazpur,
PS Mohniya, District Bhagwa,
Bihar.
Presently at:
Mahesh Yadav ka Makan,
Gali No. 1, Room NO. 36,
Kapashera, New Delhi
....... Accused
FIR No.: 333/15
PS: Kapashera
U/S: 354 IPC & 10 of the POCSO Act.
Date of Institution: 18.09.2015
Date of Arguments: 19.08.2016
Date of Judgment : 19.08.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Vide DD No. 18A dated 03.08.2015, police was informed from the Principal, MCD School No. 3, FIR No. 333/15 State Vs Vidha Sagar Page No. 1 Kapashera, New Delhi that one girl child has stated that her father did the wrong act with her. The above said information was assigned to ASI Mahender Singh for reconnoitering. Thereafter, the enquiry was assigned to W/SI Indu Mehra. Principal had produced one girl child to W/SI Indu Mehra. The mother of the child victim was also called. Statement of child victim was recorded after she was counselled from the person of CWC. In her statement, child victim has stated that she has been residing in the house of one Mahesh at Kapashera along with her parents. She was studying in class Vth. Her elder sister resided in village. Her father used to drink daily. On 27.07.2015, at about 2.00 am in the night, the father of the child victim has pressed her breast. In June, 2015, he did the same act. She had apprised the said fact to her mother. The mother of the child victim asked her father and her father had assured that he will not do anything in future. Today, she had FIR No. 333/15 State Vs Vidha Sagar Page No. 2 come back from the school before time and her father was coming after consuming liquor and thought that her father would do wrong act with her after her mother had gone for work. She had apprised the above said facts to her Principal who had informed the police. The above said statement was endorsed by the police and got registered the case. During the course of investigation, police collected the evidence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the accused. After completion of the investigation, police filed the charge sheet in the court.
2. After being heard, vide order dated 14.10.2015, accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 10 r/w 9(m) & (n) of POCSO Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has relied upon as many as eleven witnesses namely Child Victim, Ms. Chander Prabha Principal, FIR No. 333/15 State Vs Vidha Sagar Page No. 3 Mother of the child victim, C.t Amit, Ct. Ashok, ASI Mahender Singh, Dr. Neha Paruthi, Dr. Sachin Soni, Ms. Richa Gusain Solanki, Ld. MM, Choukidar Harish, HC Jagdeep Singh and W/SI Indu Mehra. However, the prosecution has examined three witnesses in all. Considering the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 who had not supported the case of the prosecution, this court has closed the evidence of the prosecution.
4. PW 1 Child Victim and PW 2 mother of the child victim are the vital and material witnesses in this case. When they had come in the witness box, they had not supported the case of the prosecution. Child victim who had been examined as PW 1 had stated that accused was his father and he was a drunkard and he used to take liquor daily. After taking liquor, her father used to quarrel with her mother. One day in the morning, her father had given beatings to her and on the same day, she had apprised the same facts to her friend in the FIR No. 333/15 State Vs Vidha Sagar Page No. 4 school. Thereafter, her friend had narrated something to her class teacher. Thereafter, police had come to her school and they had obtained her signature on a written paper but she had not gone through the contents of the same before signing it. She was medically examined. Except this, she had not stated anything. Even, Ld. Addl. PP for the State had also cross examined the child victim, but he could not extract anything/ fact substantial from the mouth of the child victim. The statement of the mother of the child victim is also the same. She stated that her husband used to beat her almost everyday after consuming liquor. PW 3 Smt. Sumitra Yadav, Teacher at MCD Primary School, Kapashera had only brought the original record pertaining to the date of birth of the child victim maintained in her school.
5. In view of the above testimonies on record, this court does not find any fruitful purpose to examine FIR No. 333/15 State Vs Vidha Sagar Page No. 5 other witnesses, hence, prosecution evidence stands closed being no incriminating evidence found on the judicial record. Examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with. Accordingly, accused is acquitted from the charge under Section 10 r/w 9(m) & (n) of POCSO Act. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled and discharged. However, he is directed to furnish the bail bond in terms of Section 437A of Cr.PC. File is consigned to record room. Announced in open court On 19.08.2016 (ATUL KUMAR GARG) ASJ01, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi FIR No. 333/15 State Vs Vidha Sagar Page No. 6 State Vs Vidha Sagar FIR No. 333/15 PS: Kapashera 19.08.2016 Present: Sh. Aditya Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused is on bail along with Ld. Legal Aid Counsel Sh. V.S. Chauhan for the accused. No PW is present.
I have perused the record. Child Victim as well as her mother who had been examined has not stated anything against the applicant. Therefore, prosecution evidence stands closed, being no incriminating evidence found on the judicial record. Examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
Vide my separate order dictated and announced in open court, accused is acquitted from the charge under Section 10 r/w 9(m) & (n) of POCSO Act. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled and discharged. However, he is directed to furnish the bail bond in terms of Section 437A of Cr.PC. File is consigned to record room.
(ATUL KUMAR GARG) ASJ01, South West District, Dwarka Court, New Delhi FIR No. 333/15 State Vs Vidha Sagar Page No. 7 FIR No. 333/15 State Vs Vidha Sagar Page No. 8