Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikash on 18 October, 2014
State Vs. Vikash
FIR NO: 108/13
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS DHULL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :--
SC No. : 54/02/2013
FIR No. : 108/13
Police : Palam Village
Station
Under : u/s 12 of The Protection
Section of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
State
Versus
1. Vikash
S/o Sh.Malkhan Singh
R/o RZG-50, Dev Kunj
Near Dada Dev Mandir
Palam Village
New Delhi.
Fresh charge : 29.07.2013
sheet received
by way of
assignment.
Reserved for : 13.10.2014
judgment on
Judgment : 18.10.2014
announced on
SC NO: 54/2/2013 1/23
State Vs. Vikash
FIR NO: 108/13
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution story in brief is that on 07.04.2013 at 10.31 p.m., a PCR call was received by W/Ct Mamta at PS Palam Village from Help Line no.181 to the effect that one boy is misbehaving with a girl which was reduced into writing vide DD No.46A. The said call was marked to SI Naveen. Thereafter, SI Naveen Kumar alongwith W/Ct Mamta had gone to RZB-116, Raj Nagar-II, Gali No.8, Palam Colony, New Delhi where they met child victim and her mother them. Child victim had made a complaint against accused. [The name of child victim is being withheld to protect her identity U/s 33(7) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act).]
2. In her complaint Ex.PW1/A, Child victim stated that for the past 15-20 days of the date of incident, she used to go for morning walk alongwith her mother in Dadadev Park where for the past 4-5 days, one boy namely Vikas used to stalk her to whom her mother had made him understand not to do so but then also, accused used to stalk her regularly and at her back, accused used to pass dirty comments. Child victim further stated that accused used to message her on her mother's mobile phone numbers i.e. 8826105081 and 9540646733 which she had SC NO: 54/2/2013 2/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 informed to her mother, who thereafter called at Helpline No.
181.
3. On the basis of complaint of child victim, FIR NO.108/13 PS Palam Village was registered and matter was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, statement of child victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded and statement of her mother was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
4. After completion of investigation, accused was charge sheeted for the offence u/s 509/354D IPC and u/s 12 of POCSO Act and chargesheet was directly filed before this court. After taking cognizance, accused was summoned and copy of chargesheet was supplied to him. Thereafter, after hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record, accused was charged for the offence u/s 12 of POCSO Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted for prosecution evidence.
5. Prosecution has examined in all 08 witnesses.
6. PW1 Child Victim has deposed that in the month of March/April, 2013, she was studying in 10th standard. PW1 Child victim deposed that in the month of March, she alongwith her mother used to go for morning walk at Dada Dev Park, Palam. PW SC NO: 54/2/2013 3/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 Child victim deposed that accused Vikas used to stalk her. PW1 Child victim deposed that her mother tried to make him understand several times for not doing so but he did not stop. PW1 Child victim deposed that accused Vikas used to send message on mobile phone of her mother bearing no. 8826109081. PW1 Child victim further deposed that on 07.04.2013 at about 10.30p.m, her mother made a complaint by dialing number 181 and soon after some police officials came to her house and made inquires from her. PW1 Child victim deposed that her statement was recorded by police vide Ex.PW1/A. She deposed that from their house, she alongwith her mother and the police officials went to the house of accused Vikas, who was residing in the same vicinity. PW1 Child victim deposed that her mother knew the house of accused Vikas. PW1 Child victim further deposed that at that time, accused Vikas was present at his house. Thereafter accused Vikas was brought to police station Palam village where he was interrogated by Police officials. PW1 Child victim correctly identified her signature on her statement at point A and proceedings U/s 164 Cr.P.C.Ex.PW1/B. PW1 Child victim correctly identified the accused present before the court, on the date of her examination, who used to stalk her.
7. In her cross examination, PW1 Child victim deposed that she is studying in 11th standard. PW1 Child victim deposed that she SC NO: 54/2/2013 4/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 used to go for tuition at Giandeep Coaching Centre Gali no.3, Palam colony, Raj Nagar, New Delhi from 5.00p.m to 6.00p.m. PW1 Child victim admitted that accused also used to take tuition in the same coaching centre but his timing was from 6.00p.m to 7.00p.m. PW1 Child victim admitted that when she used to leave the coaching centre, accused used to reach there. PW1 Child victim admitted that she used to talk to accused at the coaching centre and was in touch with the accused since February 2013. PW1 Child victim denied that teacher at the coaching centre had objected to her talking with the accused. PW1 Child victim admitted that her mother was called at the tuition centre with regard to her talking with the accused. PW1 Child victim denied that teacher at the coaching centre had told her mother that she will not be allowed to continue in the coaching centre, if she continues to talk with the accused. PW1 Child victim admitted that she left the said Centre soon after the visit of her parents. PW1 Child victim voluntarily deposed that since her Board examination had ended, therefore she had stopped going to the tuition centre. PW1 Child victim denied that other students of the coaching centre had warned her that in case she continued to talk with accused, her parents will be informed. PW1 denied that she had to leave the coaching centre since her parents came to know about her talking to the accused. PW1 admitted that she had cordial relations with the accused. PW1 denied that she SC NO: 54/2/2013 5/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 used to meet the accused at other places apart from tuition centre. PW1 Child victim deposed that she used to talk to accused only for a few minutes after her session used to end and before the start of session of the accused. PW1 admitted that her mother and accused used to play Badminton in Dada Dev Park. PW1 Child victim denied that she used to talk to accused while he used to play with her mother. PW1 denied that she had a talk with accused on 13.10.2013. PW1 admitted that by giving the complaint at 181 number, they wanted to tell the accused that he should not follow us. PW1 admitted that she do not want to proceed further against the accused provided accused undertakes in writing not to trouble her again by stalking. PW1 denied that police has falsely implicated the accused. PW1 admitted that she had talked to accused 3-4 times on his mobile phone prior to the incident. PW1 further admitted that she used to call the accused. PW1 admitted that she has also sent SMS to the accused on his mobile phone. PW1 deposed that she used to find the accused alongwith his friends in the park during their morning walk. PW1 deposed that accused has not made any comments upon her in the park but he used to start talking with his friends on seeing her. PW1 deposed that she do not know what they used to talk but she suspect, they used to talk about her. PW1 denied that accused never used to stalk her in the park.
SC NO: 54/2/2013 6/23State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13
8. PW1 Child victim was recalled by defence u/s 311 Cr.P.C. and defence counsel had put two letters to PW1 Child victim which she admitted that the two letters Ex.PW1/D1 and Ex.PW1/D2 were written by her to accused out of her free consent. PW1 Child victim admitted that letter Ex.PW1/D1 was written by her after her parents were summoned at the tuition centre. PW1 Child victim denied that letter Ex.PW1/D2 was written by her after recording of her evidence before this court. PW1 Child victim denied that these letters demonstrate that she still have affection towards the accused.
9. PW2 is the Mother of Child victim. PW2 deposed that in the year 2013, her daughter child victim was studying in tenth standard in a school in Dwarka and she also used to take coaching tuition at Palam. PW2 deposed that accused Vikas used to take coaching from the same centre. PW2 deposed that accused was residing in the same vicinity. PW2 deposed that when she alongwith her daughter child victim used to go for a morning walk in a park near Dadadev temple, accused Vikas used to stalk us. PW2 deposed that she tried to make him understand on several occasions but accused Vikas did not stop stalking them. PW2 deposed that thereafter, she alongwith her daughter child victim started going for a morning walk in the area of Sec.9, Dwarka park but accused used to stalk them there also. PW2 deposed that one day at about 10.30 p.m., SC NO: 54/2/2013 7/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 accused Vikas had sent a message on her mobile phone. PW2 deposed that she again on that day requested accused Vikas to stop stalking them but he extended threat that he will see them. PW2 deposed that on the same day, he made a call to the police. PW2 deposed that she alongwith her daughter went to PS Palam Village where her daughter child victim made a complaint.
10.In her cross examination by accused, PW2 denied that child victim was friendly with accused. PW2 denied that due to going closeness of child victim at the coaching centre, she and her husband was called at the coaching centre by the Incharge to apprise about the same. PW2 voluntarily deposed that her husband was called in the coaching centre regarding the studies of child. PW2 deposed that she do not know when her husband went to the coaching centre. PW2 denied that after they were apprised about the friendship of child victim with accused, they did not allow child victim to attend the coaching centre. PW2 denied that child victim used to play badminton in the park in the light of friendship of child victim with the accused. PW2 voluntarily deposed that she had played with accused on one occasion when the person with whom she was playing badminton got tired and he had handed over the racket to accused. PW2 denied that she used to call accused for the purpose of playing badminton. PW2 denied that no incident SC NO: 54/2/2013 8/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 took place in Sector-9, Dwarka. PW2 deposed that she did not tell the police about the incident of Sector-9, Dwarka. PW2 deposed that she do not remember about the contents of the SMS sent by accused on her mobile phone. PW2 denied that no SMS was send by accused on her mobile phone. PW2 denied that her daughter used to call accused in the night using her mobile phone. PW2 admitted that she only want that accused should not repeat this act in future. PW2 denied that accused was not apprehended in the night. P'W2 further denied that child victim is still going alongwith the accused. PW2 denied that child victim used to write letter to accused and one letter was written to accused after the grant of bail to him.
11.PW3 is Ms.Manika, Ld.MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. PW3 proved the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of child victim Ex.PW1/B.
12.PW4 Sh.Pawan Singh is the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Limited. PW4 deposed that as per their record, mobile phone no. 9540646733 was issued in the name of Ms.Sheela Saroj and mobile phone no. 9718562118 was issued in the name of Malkhan Singh. PW4 proved the customer application form vide Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/C respectively. PW4 proved the call details for the period from 15.03.2013 to 08.04.2013 of aforementioned mobile phone numbers vide Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/D. PW4 further proved the certificate u/s 65B of Indian SC NO: 54/2/2013 9/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 Evidence Act vide Ex.PW4/E.
13.PW5 is W/Ct.Mamta, who was on night duty on 07.04.2013 and who received the call from help line no.181 to the effect that one boy is misbehaving with a girl. PW5 deposed that the said call was marked to SI Naveen, who was on emergency duty on that day. PW5 deposed that thereafter she alongwith SI Naveen and Ct Prem Chand went to the house of caller at RZB-116, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony New Delhi, where one child victim alongwith her mother met them. PW5 deposed that SI Naveen recorded the statement of child victim and prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct Prem Chand for getting the case registered. PW5 deposed that Ct Prem Chand went to P.S and they remained at the spot. Thereafter Ct Prem Chand came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to SI Naveen. PW5 deposed that thereafter child victim and her mother took them to the house of accused Vikas, who was present at his house. PW5 deposed that at the instance of child victim, accused Vikas was arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW-5/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex PW5/B. PW5 deposed that from there, accused Vikas was brought to the police station.
14.In his cross examination, PW5 deposed that the call was made SC NO: 54/2/2013 10/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 by mother of child victim at the help line no.181. PW5 deposed that they reached the house of child victim within 15-20 minutes. PW5 deposed that child victim had told that accused used to harass her while going to tuition class. PW5 deposed that IO did not ask for any date of birth certificate in her presence. PW5 deposed that Ct Prem chand went to P.S at around 12.00 mid night. PW5 deposed that she did not sign on the rukka. PW5 deposed that the house of accused is situated at ground floor but she do not know whether the house is owned by accused or not. PW5 denied that she did not go to the spot with the IO. PW5 denied that no public witness was available due to late night hours.
15.PW6 is Constable Prem Chand. PW6 deposed that on the intervening night of 7/8.04.2013, he was on emergency duty from 8.00p.m to 8.00a.m. PW6 deposed on the same lines as deposed to by PW5 W/Ct.Mamta PW6 deposed that from the police station, he alongwith Ct Satender took the accused Vikas to DDU Hospital for his medical examination and thereafter accused was brought to P.S Sector-9, Dwarka and he was put in the lockup of P.S Sector-9, Dwarka.
16.Since the witness was partly resiling from his previous statement, he was allowed to be cross examined by Ld.Addl.PP. In his cross examination by ld.Addl.PP., PW6 SC NO: 54/2/2013 11/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 admitted that SI Naveen made inquiry from him and recorded his statement. PW6 admitted that he had stated in his statement that SI Naveen prepared rukka after recording the statement of child victim and the same was handed over to him for getting the case registered and accordingly he went to P.S Palam village and got the case registered. PW6 deposed that thereafter he came back to the spot and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to SI Naveen.
17.In his cross examination by accused, PW6 deposed that he alongwith SI Naveen and Wct Mamta left the police station at about 10.30p.m for the spot. PW6 deposed that he can not tell whether they had visited the house of complainant on foot on that day. PW6 deposed that It took about 10 minutes to reach there. PW6 deposed that he had not seen father of child victim at the spot. PW6 deposed that It took about 25 minutes to get recorded the statement of child victim. PW6 deposed that he can not recollect the location of the house of accused. PW6 deposed that he had taken the rukka from the house of child victim. PW6 deposed that he had taken the accused to DDU hospital at about 3.15a.m. PW6 further deposed that Child victim and her mother did not accompany them to the police station.
18.PW7 HC Harphool Singh is the duty officer. PW7 deposed that SC NO: 54/2/2013 12/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 he received a call from wireless operator gama 56 South West District which he reduced into writing vide DD No.46A. PW7 proved DD No. 46A vide Ex.PW7/A. PW7 deposed that said DD was marked to PSI Naveen Kumar for taking necessary action.
19.PW8 SI Naveen Meena is the IO. PW8 deposed the same facts as deposed to by PW5 W/Ct Mamta and PW6 Ct.Prem Chand.
20.In his cross examination, PW8 deposed that it was about 10:30 or 11:00 P.M when one W/Ct. Mamta was taken from police station to accompany him. PW8 deposed that at 11 P.M when they reached the house of child victim, victim's father was not present there, however the mother of child victim was present there. PW8 deposed that no neighbour was present at the spot. PW8 deposed that he had sent the rukka by 12 in the night and Ct. Prem returned to the spot by 12:45 A.M along with the copy of the FIR. PW8 deposed that he did not record the statement of parents of the accused. It was about 1:30 A.M when they recorded the statement of accused. PW8 deposed that they reached the police station at about 2:15-2:30 A.M. PW8 further deposed that he recorded the statement of mother of child victim in the police station at about 3 A.M. Wct. Mamta had accompanied child victim back to their house but he did not record this fact in his case diary. PW8 admitted that there is SC NO: 54/2/2013 13/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 cutting of date of incident in the endorsement rukka Pw8/A. PW8 voluntarily deposed that due to confusion in the date it was wrongly mentioned as 8.4.2013 which was later on corrected to 7.4.2013. PW8 admitted that in the endorsement Ex. Pw8/A the date of receipt of complaint is mentioned at 8.4.2012 at 12:05 A.M. PW8 voluntarily deposed that It is mentioned by mistake. PW8 deposed that accused was arrested from his house. PW8 deposed that he investigated the case up to 5 P.M despite the fact that his duty was only up to 8 A.M of 8.4.2013. PW8 further deposed that accused was sent for medical examination to DDU hospital through Ct. Prem Chand and Ct. Lokender. PW8 deposed that the statement of the complainant were recorded twice. PW8 further deposed that he had gone to the coaching centre during investigation but the same had been shifted elsewhere. PW8 denied that during investigation, he came to know that child victim and accused were having friendship for quite a long time and even the parents of the child victim were apprised by the Incharge tuition centre. PW8 denid that he did not intentionally examined the staff of coaching centre. P'W8 denied that he is falsely stating that coaching centre had shifted. PW8 further denied that he did not conduct the investigation in a proper and a fair manner. PW8 denied that he did not seize a love letter written by child victim to the accused which was produced by accused before him during investigation. PW8 deposed that he wrongly SC NO: 54/2/2013 14/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 registered the FIR even though child victim and her mother did not want any action against the accused. PW8 deposed that he did not visit the park where the child victim used to go for her morning walk.
21.After closure of prosecution evidence, entire incriminating evidence was put to accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused stated that child victim had infact sent message to him. Accused stated that he was telephonically called at the police station. Accused stated that witnesses have deposed against him falsely. Accused further stated that he and child victim used to study at the same tuition centre and she used to talk to him which was not liked by the mother of child victim. Hence, she got a false case registered against him. Accused stated that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
22.Despite grant of opportunity to accused to lead defence evidence, no defence evidence was led.
23.Thereafter, the matter was posted was final arguments.
24.I have heard the ld. Addl.PP for state and counsel for accused and have perused the material available on record.
SC NO: 54/2/2013 15/23State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13
25.In the present case, accused has been charged u/s 12 of POCSO Act for having stalked the child victim 4-5 days prior to 07.04.2013 in the morning at Dada Dev Park, Palam, New Delhi where child victim and her mother used to go for a morning walk and for making obscene comments.
26.The offence u/s 12 of the POCSO Act has been defined in Section 11 of POCSO Act which reads as under:--
" 11. Sexual harassment.-- A person is said to commit sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent,--
(i) Utters any word or makes any sound, or makes any gesture or exhibits any object or part of body with the intention that such word or sound shall be heard, or such gesture or object or part of body shall be seen by the child; or
(ii)makes a child exhibit his body or any part of his body so as it is seen by such person or any other person; or
(iii)shows any object to a child in any form or media for pornographic purposes; or
(iv)repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means; or
(v) threatens to use, in any form of media, a real or fabricated depiction through electronic, film or digital or any other mode, of any part of the body of the child or the involvement of the child in a sexual act; or
(vi)entices a child for pornographic purposes or gives SC NO: 54/2/2013 16/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 gratification therefor.
27.Now, let us see whether in the present case, sexual harassment by way of stalking and by making obscene comments has been proved by prosecution or not?
28.The material witnesses of the present case are child victim and her mother, who have been examined as PW1 and PW2 in this case.
29.PW1 Child victim has deposed on oath that in the month of March/April, 2013, whenever she and her mother used to go for a morning walk in Dada Dev Park, accused used to stalk them and even after her mother asked accused not to do so, he did not stop. She has also deposed on oath that accused also used to send messages on the mobile phone of her mother and her mother being fed up by stalking of accused had called Women Help Line no.181 which led to registration of FIR against accused.
30.However, in the cross examination of PW1 Child victim, it has come on record that she and accused were taking coaching from same tuition centre i.e. Giandeep Coaching Centre, Gali No.3, Palam Colony, Raj Nagar, New Delhi where she used to talk to accused and she was in touch with accused since February 2013. PW1 Child victim also admitted in her cross SC NO: 54/2/2013 17/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 examination that her mother was called at the coaching centre with regard to her talking with accused. She also admitted that after visit of parents to coaching centre, she had left the same. PW1 Child victim also admitted in her cross examination that her mother and accused used to play badminton in Dada Dev Park. Child victim also admitted that she also used to send messages to accused on his mobile phone. Child victim admitted in her cross examination that accused did not make any comments upon her in the Park and he used to talk amongst his friends on seeing her. She has further deposed that accused was found sometimes standing in the park and sometimes, he was found walking in the park. Child victim was also confronted with the two letters allegedly written by her in her cross examination and child victim admitted to have written the letters Ex.PW1/D1 and Ex.PW1/D2 to accused.
31.In her letter Ex.PW1/D1, child victim had written to accused that her mother has come to know about her friendship with accused and her parents were summoned at the coaching centre and they were told that she/child victim used to meet accused at the coaching centre. It was further stated in the letter Ex.PW1/D1 by the child victim that she has assured her mother that she will not talk to accused in future and in the said letter, child victim was requesting accused to falsely tell everyone that he had broken up with her/child victim and child SC NO: 54/2/2013 18/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 victim had requested the accused to provide her a new SIM regarding which he should not tell anyone.
32.The prosecution has also examined Sh.Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Limited. PW4 has proved mobile no. 9540646733 belonging to mother of child victim and mobile no. 9718562118 of accused. The Call Detail Record of aforementioned two mobile numbers from the period w.e.f. 15.03.2013 to 08.04.2013 Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/D shows that frequent calls were exchanged between two aforementioned mobile numbers from the period from 15th March to 08th April, 2013.
33.Now, coming to the testimony of PW1 Child victim, it also nowhere reflects that child victim was being stalked by accused in Dada Dev Park. Child victim has categorically deposed in her cross examination that accused never used to pass any comments upon her in the park. In the light of her admission, prosecution case that accused used to pass obscene comments upon child victim and her mother, gets demolished.
34.With regard to issue of stalking, child victim has deposed in her cross examination that accused used to stand there or used to walk in the park but she has nowhere deposed that accused used to follow them. Even otherwise, it cannot be believed that SC NO: 54/2/2013 19/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 accused used to stalk child victim and her mother when it has come in the evidence of child victim that she was friend of accused since February, 2013 and they were in touch over the mobile phone and through SMS. Child victim has also admitted that she used to talk with accused at the coaching centre and she has also admitted that she and her mother used to play badminton with accused in the park and she was having cordial relations with accused.
35.All the aforementioned facts which have been admitted by child victim goes to show that child victim was friend of accused and was having cordial relations with accused. Therefore, it cannot be believed that accused will stalk child victim and her mother in the morning when they used to go for a morning walk in Dada Dev Park.
36.Further, letter Ex.PW1/D1 of the child victim makes it clear that her parents had come to know about her friendship with accused at the coaching centre and that is why she had requested the accused to spread the false news of her breakup with him and also requested him to provide her a new SIM so that she can talk to him.
37.The letter Ex.PW1/D1 supports the defence of accused that since parents of child victim had come to know about child SC NO: 54/2/2013 20/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 victim talking to accused at the coaching centre and the same was not liked by mother of child victim, therefore, he was falsely implicated.
38.PW2, who happens to be mother of child victim has also deposed on oath that accused used to stalk her and her daughter Child victim whenever they used to go for a morning walk in Dada Dev Park in Palam but since accused did not stop stalking them, they started to go for morning walk in the area of Sector-9, Dwarka but accused used to stalk them in Sector-9, Dwarka also.
39.In her cross examination, PW2 Mother of child victim denied that child victim used to write letters to accused and child victim used to call the accused. She also denied that she used to play badminton with accused in the park. PW2 also denied that no incident took place in Sector-9, Dwarka.
40.The evidence of PW2 Mother of child victim cannot be believed as whatever she has deposed in her cross examination, has not been supported by her daughter i.e. PW1 Child Victim. Although PW2 Mother of child victim has denied that her daughter PW1 never used to write letters or call the accused but child victim has admitted about the same. PW2 Mother of child victim has denied playing badminton with accused in SC NO: 54/2/2013 21/23 State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13 Dada Dev Park while child victim has admitted regarding the same in her cross examination. Further, PW2 Mother of child victim deposed regarding stalking of accused in Sector-9, Dwarka but no such deposition has been made by child victim. Therefore, it appears to be an after thought.
41.Further, PW2 Mother of child victim has denied that they did not allow child victim to attend the coaching centre due to friendship of child victim with accused but letter of child victim Ex.PW1/D1 proves that since parents of child victim came to know about her talking to accused, she was not allowed to continue the coaching centre. Therefore, due to this false deposition made by PW2 Mother of child victim, she is not a witness, who can be believed and her credibility stands totally shaken.
42. In the light of evidence which has come on record, prosecution has failed to prove that accused used to pass obscene comments upon child victim and her mother and used to stalk them when they used to go for a morning walk in Dada Dev Park. On the contrary, it has come on record that child victim and accused were friends, who were in touch over the mobile phone and through letters. Therefore, it cannot be believed that accused, who was friendly with child victim, would be stalking her.
SC NO: 54/2/2013 22/23State Vs. Vikash FIR NO: 108/13
43.In the light of above discussion, prosecution has failed to prove offence u/s 12 of POCSO Act against accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 12 of POCSO Act. Personal bond/surety bond, if any of accused is discharged.
44.In terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C let accused furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount with undertaking to appear before the appellate court as and when he receives notice from it.
Announced in the open court (Vikas Dhull)
Dated: 18.10.2014 ASJ-01/Dwarka Courts
New Delhi
SC NO: 54/2/2013 23/23