Delhi District Court
State vs Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 Of on 29 November, 2017
:: 16 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, WEST,
SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE POCSO ACT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
New Sessions Case Number : 57215 of 2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144 of 2014.
State
versus
Mr. Bharat
Son of Mr.Ram Kumar,
Resident of RZ-69, Sayed Village
Nangloi, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 416/2014.
Police Station: Mianwali Nagar.
Under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
and under section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Date of filing of the charge sheet : 07.07.2014
Arguments concluded on : 29.11.2017.
Date of judgment : 29.11.2017.
Appearances: Ms. Nimmi Sisodia, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Ms. Shradha Vaid, counsel for Delhi Commission for
Women.
Accused Bharat is present on bail.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, counsel for accused.
*********************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Bharat, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Mianwali Nagar for the offences under sections 376 of the Indian New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and under sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act).
2. Accused Mr.Bharat has been prosecuted on the allegations that during the period prior to 12.05.2014 at the house of the prosecutrix (address mentioned in file and withheld to protect the identity of the prosecutrix), he had committed repeatedly penetrative sexual assault upon the prosecutrix (who is a minor girl aged about 15 years). The name, age and particulars of the prosecutrix are mentioned in the file and are withheld to protect her identity and she is hereinafter addressed as Ms.X, a fictitious identity given to her. Her father is addressed as Mr.Z, a fictitious identity given to him, to protect the identity of the prosecutrix.
CHARGE SHEET AND COMMITTAL
3. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Predecessor on 07.07.2014.
CHARGE
4. After hearing arguments, charge for offences under section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against accused Mr.Bharat vide order dated 20.09.2014 by the learned predecessor of this Court to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses i.e. ASI Dalip Singh, the duty officer of the present case, who had lodged the FIR of the present case, as PW1; Mr. Suresh Kumar, Record Keeper, MCD, as PW2; Mr.Z, father of the prosecutrix, as PW3; ASI Tijender Singh, the DD writer, as PW4; HC Ashok, duty officer, who received the wireless message, as PW5; Ms.Sonia Malik, Staff Nurse Asha Kiran Complex, as PW6; Mr. Dhirendra Rana, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who had recorded the statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) of the prosecutrix, as PW7; Dr, Anubha Verma, who has medically examined the prosecutrix, as PW8; the prosecutrix, Ms.X, as PW9; Ms.Pratibha, working as aunty in Asha Kiran Complex, as PW10; Ct.Savitri, witness of investigation, as PW11; and IO SI Sushil, the investigation officer of the present case, as PW12.
6. The accused and his counsel have preferred not to cross examine PWs 1, 2, 5 and 9 due to which their evidence remains uncontroverted and unrebutted and can be presumed to have been admitted as correct by the accused.
7. On 26.08.2017, Mr.Manoj Kumar, counsel for accused Mr.Bharat had made statement before the Court that accused admits the evidence of PWs -Ct. Dinesh, Ct. Virender Singh, Dr. Ritwika Kaushla, Dr. Gurdeep, Ct. Vinod Kumar, HC Manoj Kumar, SI Ajay Gupta, Dr. New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
Munish Wadhawan and Ms. Magdleen Marin, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific officer (Biology) FSL Delhi. The counsel for accused has also submitted that the accused also admits the documents prepared / signed by them are not in dispute.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CR.P.C.
8. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., recorded on 15.11.2017, the accused has controverted and rebutted the entire evidence against him submitting that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as the prosecutrix is mentally challenged (dimag nahin hai).
ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
10. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has requested for convicting the accused for having committed the offence under section 6 of POCSO Act submitting that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused by examining its witnesses whose testimonies are corroborative and reliable. The prosecutrix is a cousin of the accused and she has been won over by him. Also, the IQ level of the prosecutrix is very low and her mental age is 04 years, as is New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
clear from the IQ/SQ Assessment Report (Mark X) and for this reason, she may not have deposed against the accused.
11. The counsel for the accused has requested for the acquittal of the accused submitting that there is nothing incriminating against the accused on the record. There is a delay in lodging of the FIR which remains unexplained. There are several contradictions in the different statements of the prosecutrix which otherwise also do not inspire confidence as she is mentally impaired.
DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS, OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
12. The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that part of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concretized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So the Courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
13. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION, ALLEGATIONS, PROVED DOCUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
14. The prosecution case unveils with the prosecutrix (PW9) telling Ms. Pratibha (PW10), who is working as Aunty in Asha Kiran Complex, Rohini that her neighbor, Ms.Kavita aunty, used to call Mr.Mehbobb and the accused from her neighbourhood in the absence of New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
her father and the accused and Mehboob used to do 'Galat Kaam' with her in her house. When the prosecutrix told Ms. Pratibha about this, Ms.Pratibha (PW10) informed about the same to the officers of Asha Kiran and on their instance, she along with staff nurse of the Asha Kiran namely Sonia Malik took the prosecutrix to the Ambedkar Hospital for her medical examination. From the hospital, she made a call at 100 number. In the hosptial, she gave her statement (Ex.PW10/A) and after the examination, she received the prosecutrix vide handing over memo (Ex.PW6/B). On 11.06.2014, Ct. Sandeep (not examined) received the information from phone and the caller informed him about the incident and he prepared the PCR form and ASI Tijender Singh (PW4) passed on the message to Libra 79 and to district control room. The attested computerized PCR form the PHQ is Ex.PW4/A. On 11.06.2014, HC Ashok (PW5), had recorded the information vide DD no. 55-A (Ex.PW5/A) regarding 'Galat Kaam' with a girl and that the girl is admitted in the hospital. Ms. Sonia Malik (PW6) had taken the prosecutrix (PW9) to the Baba Saheb Ambedkar hospital for her medical examination and house aunty Ms. Pratibha (PW10) also accompanied them and on reaching the hospital, house aunty Ms.Praibha made a call at 100 number. The photocopies of the referral slip and slip of Baba Saheb Ambedkar hospital are Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B and Ms. Sonia Malik had signed on MLC at point A (Ex.PW6/C). After the medical examination of the prosecutrix, she was handed over to Ms. Sonia Malik (PW6) and aunty Pratibha vide receipt (ExPW6/D). ASI Dalip Singh New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
(PW1), duty officer registered FIR No.416/14 (Ex.PW1/A) and also made endorsement on rukka (Ex.PW1/C). ASI Dalip Singh (PW1) also issued a certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW1/B). Prosecutrix (PW9) was also produced before learned Metropolitan Magistrate (PW7) for recording her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW7/A). After recording the statement, learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued the certificate (Ex.PW7/B). The IO of the case has also moved an application for supply of copy of statement (Ex.PW7/C) and application for recording statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW7/D). Dr.Anubha Verma (PW8) conducted the gynecological examination of the prosecutrix (PW9) vide MLC 365/14 (Ex.PW8/A) and after the examination the victim was referred to Adolescent clinic in SGM hospital, New Delhi. Accused was arrested in the presence of father (PW3) of the prosecutrix vide arrest memo (Ex.PW4/A) and the personal search of accused was taken vide personal search memo (Ex.PX-1). Accused also confessed his crime vide disclosure statement (Ex.PX-2). Mr.Suresh Kumar, record keeper MCD (PW2) had proved the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 02.09.1996. The verified copy of the birth certificate is Ex.PW2/A. On 12.06.2014, IO/SI Sushila (PW12) received a telephone call from the duty officer of PS Mianwali Nagar and was directed to go to BSA hospital as a call was received. She went to BSA hospital where SI Ajay along with his staff from PS Mianwali Nagar met her. SI Ajay informed that two ladies from NGO Asha Kiran had brought the prosecutrix New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
(PW9) as she informed her that wrong act was committed upon her. The prosecutrix refused for her gyaneological examination and she made inquiries from Ms. Pratibha (PW10) who was working in Asha Kiran complex and recorded her statement. Ms.Pratibha informed that the prosecutrix was being raped accused and Mr.Mehboob. IO/SI Sushila (PW12) made endorsement (Ex.PW12/A) on the statement of the Ms.Pratibha and handed over the rukka to Ct.Dinesh and he was sent to Police Station Mianwali Nagar for registration of FIR. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was sent alongwith the complainant Ms. Pratibha and the other lady staff Ms.Sonia (PW6) to Asha Kiran complex. IO/SI Sushila (PW12) along with the member of NGO went to Asha Kiran complex and counseling was provided to the prosecutrix (PW9) and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix became ready for her internal examination. She was taken to SGM hospital and her medical examination was got conducted. After the medical examination of the prosecutrix, the doctor handed over a white box containing the exhibits of the prosecutrix in a sealed condition. This sealed box alongwith sample seal of SGM hospital were taken into police possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW12/B). Thereafter, the prosecutrix (PW9) was taken to Asha Kiran complex and IO/SI Sushila (PW12) went to PS Mianwali Nagar and deposited the seized exhibits with MLC and called father of the prosecutrix in PS Mianwali Nagar. Then, IO/SI Sushila (PW12) along with him went to place of incident. IO/SI Sushila (PW12) prepared site plan (Ex.PW3/B) at the instance of father of the New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
prosecutrix. The prosecutrix (PW9) had levelled allegations of commission of wrong act only by the accused during her statement under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. IO/SI Sushila (PW12) sent Ct.Virender along with the accused to SGM hospital for conducting his medical examination and IO/SI Sushila (PW12) came to PS Mianwali Nagar. After sometime Ct. Virender along with the accused came to PS and he handed over the MLC of the accused and one sealed parcel containing the exhibits of the case alongwith sample seal. This parcel and sample seal were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PX-5) and deposited this sealed parcel and sample seal in the malkhana. IO/SI Sushila recorded the statements of the prosecution witness who are the father of the prosectrix (PW3) and Ct. Savitri (PW-11). On 17.06.2014, IO/SI Sushila (PW12) sent Ct.Umed to FSL for depositing the sealed exhibits and IO/SI Sushila recorded the statements of Ct.Umed and MHC(M) after deposition of exhibits in the FSL and on 20.06.2014 IO/SI Sushila got collected the PCR form (Ex.PW12/C) from the control room. On 28.06.2014 accused was produced by the jail staff at SGM hospital on the direction of the Court as IO/SI Sushila (PW12) had moved an application for conducting his potency test and went to SGM hospital and got conducted the potency test of accused. The report of the doctor (Ex.PX-9) and recorded the statements of witnesses. After completing the investigation, IO/SI Sushila (PW12) filed the chargesheet and no action was taken against accused Mehbob as during investigation the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegations against him. Dr. Manisha Jha, Clinical Psychologist, IHBAS (CW1) has deposed in place of New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
Dr.Vibha that the IQ of the prosecutrix (PW9) was assessed by Dr. Vibha and she has issued the IQ/SQ Assessment report dated 22.04.2015 (Mark X). The Repeat Assessment of the prosecutrix was done by Dr. Manisha Jha (CW1) on 25.05.2015 and the copy of the report is Ex.CW1/A.
15. In the complaint (Ex.PW10/A), Ms.Pratibha (PW10) has stated that the prosecutrix had told her that accused Mr.Bharat and Mr.Mehboob used to do "galat kaam" with her.
16. The father of the prosecutrix (PW4) has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused except that he is a witness of his arrest.
17. It is important to mention here that in the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW7/A), she has stated that accused Mr.Bharat, who is the son of her paternal Uncle (Chacha), used to come to her house everyday and he used to do "galat kaam" with her. Except for accused Mr.Bharat, no one else has done any "galat kaam" with her.
18. In her evidence before the Court, the prosecutrix (PW9) has deposed that "I do not remember as to why did I come to depose before another judge for making statement Ex.PW7/A...... New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
Q. Do you know as to why accused Bharat is in jail now a days? Ans. Yes, in view of mine, he is behind bars. Because, I had given a false statement to implicate him.
Q. Whether accused has committed any Galat Kaam with you ? Ans. No. One person namely Mehboob had done Galat Kaam with me but the accused Bharat has committed no wrong with me.
Q. Why did you gave false statement against the accused Bharat ? Ans. MERA DIMAG GHUM GAYA THA."
19. The prosecutrix was cross examined at length by the Addi- tional Public Prosecutor for the State but nothing material for the prose- cution has come forth. She has deposed that "It is correct that earlier I was suffering from 'fits' problem and I was undergoing treatment for the same at that time when my statement Ex.PW7/A was recorded....It is wrong to suggest that accused Bharat had been committing rape upon me after the death of my mother." She has denied telling anything to Ms.Pratibha, whom she did not know. She has denied that accused Mr.Bharat has been coming to her house and repeatedly committing rape upon her.
20. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the pros- New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
ecutrix Ms.X (PW9) and her father Mr.Z (PW4), who are the star wit- nesses and the material witnesses of the prosecution, I am of the consid- ered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustwor- thy and reliable as the prosecutrix has retracted from her earlier state- ment and turned hostile. Nothing material for the prosecution has come forth in her cross examination on behalf of the State. She has, in fact, de- posed that the accused is innocent and has not committed any offence against the her. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
22. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
23. In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
24. If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
25. The evidence of Ms.Pratibha (PW10) and the other prosecution witnesses, who are the doctors and police witnesses, is insufficient for convicting the accused especially in view of the hostile nature of the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no medical or forensic evidence against the accused.
26. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the witnesses have themselves not deposed anything incriminating against accused Mr.Bharat. Even otherwise, no useful New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
27. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused Mr.Bharat is guilty of the charged offence under section 6 of the POCSO Act.
28. There is no material on record to show that during the period prior to 12.05.2014 at the house of the prosecutrix (address mentioned in file and withheld to protect the identity of the prosecutrix), he had committed repeatedly penetrative sexual assault upon the prosecutrix (who is a minor girl aged about 15 years).
29. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the prosecution has failed to establish the offences against accused Mr.Bharat for the offence of repeated penetrative sexual assault. The evidence of the witnesses makes it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place. The most material witness i.e. the prosecutrix has not deposed an iota of evidence that accused Mr.Bharat has committed the charged offence.
30. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused Mr.Bharat for the offence under section New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
6 of the POCSO Act.
31. Consequently, accused Mr.Bharat is hereby acquitted of the charges for the offence of repeated penetrative sexual assault on the prosecutrix under section 6 of the POCSO Act.
COMPLAINCE OF SECTION 437-A OF THE CR.P.C. AND OTHER FORMALITIES
32. Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
33. Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
34. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
35. After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 29th day of November, 2017. Additional Sessions Judge-01,West, Special Court under the POCSO Act, New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-
:: 16 ::
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
********************************************************** New Sessions Case Number : 57215/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 144/2014.
First Information Report Number : 416/14.
Police Station : Mianwali Nagar.
Under sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr. Bharat. -:: Page 16 of
16 ::-