Delhi District Court
State vs Bijender// Fir No. 160/13// Ps Shahbad ... on 1 September, 2014
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-01: NORTH: ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO:142/13
FIR NO:160/13
PS : SHAHBAD DAIRY
U/S: 354A/354B IPC & 8 OF POCSO ACT
STATE
VERSUS
BIJENDER S/O. SHRI RAM AWATAR
R/O. H.NO.B-5/30, SHAHBAD DAIRY,
DELHI. .......ACCUSED
Date of Institution:27.05.2013
Date of Argument:13.08.2014
Date of Decision:25.08.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecutrix in brief is that on 25.03.2013 at about 07.34 p.m. information was received at police station Shahbad Dairy about a girl being taken by a boy at A Block, Nirankari Bhawana, Akhara Road, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. This information was reduced into writing as DD no. 65B and it was marked to SI Surender for taking necessary action. SI Surender alongwith Ct. Mahesh went to the spot, where they found that lot of people had gathered and a boy was apprehended by the public persons whose name was revealed as Bijender, s/o. Sh. Ram Avtar and he had been beaten up by STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 1 of page 20 -:2:- the public severely. They also found the complainant Kamal at the spot, who made statement to the police that his daughter namely H (identity withheld) aged 7 years had gone alongwith her cousin at about 7.30p.m to ease herself at Shauchalya near the jhuggi. His daughter returned back sobbing and she narrated that when she and her cousin reached at Shauhchalaya a boy forcibly took her inside the Shauchalaya, by gagging her mouth and forcibly started taking out her clothes and when she resisted, he tore her clothes and started touching her chest. She raised alarm and in the meantime, her cousin came at the spot alongwith other public persons and apprehended the said boy and beat him at the spot. SI Surender reduced this complaint into writing and on the basis of the same, he got the FIR registered through Ct. Mahesh. Since accused Bijender was beaten up by the public persons, he was medically examined in Maharishi Valmiki Hospital through Ct. Ravi. Thereafter, accused Bijender was arrested.
2. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. The statement of the victim ' H' was also got recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. from Ld. Magistrate. After recording the statement of witnesses and completion of investigation, he filed the challan in the court u/s. 354A/354B IPC and u/s. 8 of POCSO Act.
3. Ld MM after compliance of provision u/s 207 Cr.P.C STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 2 of page 20 -:3:- committed the case to Sessions Court through Ld District Judge which was assigned to this court.
4. Thereafter, charge for the offence u/s. 354A/354B IPC & in alternative u/s. 10 of POCSO Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of this case, prosecution has examined in total 7 witnesses i.e. PW1 is victim H, PW-2 is her father Sh. Kamal Mandal, PW-3 is Ms. Chanda Kumari, cousin of the victim. Their testimony shall be discussed in the later part of judgement.
6. PW-4 Ct. Mukesh Kumar had accompanied IO SI Surender when they had reached at the spot after receiving DD 65 B. He is the witness of recording the statement of Sh. Kamal Mandal, father of the prosecutrix by the IO. This witness had taken the rukka to the police station and got the FIR registered. He is also the witness of the arrest of the accused vide his arrest memo Ex. PW 2/B and his personal search memo Ex. PW 2/C.
7. PW-5 HC Baldev Singh was the duty officer at PS SB Dairy on 25.03.2013 and he had recorded the FIR in the present case on the basis of the rukka brought by Ct. Mahesh. After registration of the FIR, he made endorsement on the rukka regarding registration of the FIR vide Kayami DD no. 34A. The endorsement on the kayami is proved as Ex. PW 5/A STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 3 of page 20 -:4:- and the FIR has been proved as Ex.PW5/B. He has also proved the copy of the DD no.65B as Ex.PW5/C.
8. PW-6 Ct. Ravi was on patrolling duty in the area and had seen that public persons had gathered at the spot. He went there when he found that SI Surender and Ct. Mahesh were already present there. On the instructions of SI Surender he took accused Bijender to the hospital for his medical examination and got him medically examined.
9. PW7 SI Surender is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed that on 25.03.2013 after receiving DD No.65B he alongwith Ct. Mahesh had gone to the spot where they had found that lot of people had gathered and public persons had apprehended accused Bijender. He recorded the statement of Sh. Kamal Manda, which is Ex. PW 2/A and on the basis of the same, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW 7/A and got the FIR registered through Ct.Mahesh. He also got the accused medically examined since he was beaten up by the public persons. He arrested the accused Bijender vide memo Ex. PW 2/B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW 2/C. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/B and got the statement of the prosecutrix 'H' recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, he filed challan in the present case.
10. It is relevant here to state that on 31.01.2014, ld.
STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 4 of page 20 -:5:- Counsel for the defence had admitted the proceedings u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. and in view of the same PW Shri Manish Khurana, ld. MM who had recorded the statement of the victim H u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was dropped as prosecution witness.
11. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, in which he has denied all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He took the defence that he was not arrested from the alleged spot but he was apprehended by the police on suspicion near Shahbad bus stand while he was going back from his job to his house and after interrogation police started beating him and falsely implicated him in this case. He did not lead any defence evidence.
12. The question arises whether the accused has committed the offence for which he has been charged.
13. The victim H has been examined as PW1 in the present case. She is a small girl of 7 years. Before examining the said witness the court asked certain preliminary questions to her in order to know as to whether she is capable of understanding the questions and giving rational answers to the questions put to her. When the Court was satisfied about the same in view of the answers given by her to the preliminary STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 5 of page 20 -:6:- questions which have been recorded in the deposition, she was examined. However, in view of the tender age of the child/victim, oath was not administered to her. She has deposed that on the day of the incident, she had gone with her sister to ease herself and when they were returning back, a boy forcibly took her inside the latrine where he slapped her and tore her cloths i.e. Jeans Pant. She started shouting and in the meantime one Karachan Bhaiya come, who lived near to her house and he rescued her from the clutches of the said person. In the meantime her aunty who also lived nearby came and took her to her house. She correctly identified the accused in Court.
14. The statement of the victim H is corroborated by her earlier statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded before ld. MM. The incident in question occurred on 25.03.2013 and the statement of the victim H u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded on the next day i.e. on 26.03.2013. ld. Counsel for the defence vide his statement dated 31.01.2014 has not disputed the said proceedings. In the said statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C H had narrated about the incident almost in the same way as she has deposed in Court. Hence, the said statement is corroborating her deposition in the Court.
15. Her statement is further corroborated by Ms. Chanda Kumari (PW3) who is the cousin of the victim 'H'. She STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 6 of page 20 -:7:- is a girl of 12 years. In order to know the competency of this witness the Court asked certain preliminary questions to her as well and on being satisfied that she was capable of understanding the question put to her, the Court went on record her testimony. She was also examined without oath. She has deposed that on the day of the incident she had taken her sister H to Sauchalaya so that she could ease herself. When they were returning, a boy came and muffled the mouth of H with his hand and took her with him in he said latrine. She (the witness) raised alarm and as a result of same, many people gathered there, who took out the said boy and her sister from the latrine. She noticed that said boy had torn the cloths of H. The said boy was beaten by the people. She has also correctly identified the accused in Court.
16. The present FIR was registered on the statement of Shri Kamal Mandal (PW2), who is the father of the victim. He has proved his statement given to the police, which is Ex.PW2/A. He has also correctly identified the accused in Court. He alongwith Ct. Mahesh (PW4) and IO/SI Surender (PW7) have proved that the accused was arrested from the spot vide his arrest memo Ex.PW2/B. His personal search was also conducted, which is Ex.PW2/C. On the basis of statement of the complainant, IO prepared a rukka which is Ex.PW7/A and he got the FIR registered through Ct. Mahesh. Copy of the FIR STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 7 of page 20 -:8:- has been proved as Ex.PW5/A. HC Baldev Singh was the duty officer, who had recorded the FIR and he has been examined as PW5. Since the accused was beaten by the public, he was also got medically examined at M.V. Hospital through Ct. Ravi.
17. Section 10 of the Prevention of the Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) provides punishment of aggravated sexual assault. Sexual assault has been defined u/s. 7 of the POCSO Act. It reads as under:-
7. Sexual Assault. - Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.
From the above it is clear that for the applicability of the Section 7 of the POCSO Act, it is necessary that the accused must touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or that makes child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of said person or any other person with sexual intent. It also provides that if the accused does any other act with sexual intent, which involves physical contact without penetration, it is also "sexual assault" within the meaning of the said provision.
STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 8 of page 20 -:9:- In my view, the words "does any other act with sexual intent which involved physical contact without penetration", in the said provision have to be read "ejusdum generous" with words mentioned in the earlier part of the said provision i.e. touching the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the same of said person with sexual intent. The said words i.e. doing any other act with sexual intent, which involved physical contact without penetration cannot be extended to any sort of physical contact without penetration, although, it may be with sexual intent.
The punishment for the sexual assault has been provided in Section 8 of the said Act which is not less than 3 years and it may be extended to 5 years and it is also liable to be fine. The said sexual assault done under certain circumstances as defined in Section 9 makes the act of the accused more serious and it comes under the category of "aggravated sexual assault" for which punishment is provided u/s. 10 of the POCSO Act. The minimum punishment for such act is Imprisonment for not less than 5 years, but, which may be extended to 7 years and it is also liable to fine. Hence, the offence of "sexual assault" and "aggravated sexual assault"
provide severe sentence and hence, the latter part of the Section 7 of the POCSO Act must be construed strictly.
18. In the present case, the victim H has deposed that STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 9 of page 20 -:10:- when the accused took her inside the latrine, he slapped her and tore her cloth i.e. Jeans Pant. She started shouting and she was rescued by the people. She was not assaulted by the accused more than this regarding which she has deposed. Hence, although the accused tore her Jeans Pant, but there is no allegation that he touched the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the said child, which is the requirement of the first part of Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Tearing of her cloths i.e. Jeans Pant cannot be taken as the act of the accused to satisfy the latter part of the Section 7 of the POCSO Act is, which provides for doing any other act with sexual intent, which involves physical contact without penetration. Since, in my view, there was no sexual assault with the child within the meaning of Section 7 of the said Act, the accused is liable to be acquitted u/s. 10 of the POCSO Act.
19. However, it is proved that he made physical contact with the victim H with explicit sexual overtures and he sexually harassed her and he used criminal force against her with intent to disrobe her in public place and the offence u/s. 354A IPC and Section 354 B IPC are proved.
20. It is argued by the ld. Defence counsel that prosecution has not filed any documents on record in support of its contention that the age of the victim H was 7 years. It is controverted by ld. Addl. PP for the State. In my view, even if STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 10 of page 20 -:11:- the investigating agency has not collected any document in support of age of the victim, it is of no consequence. It is only for the applicability of the POCSO Act that the age of the victim has to be below 18 years. As stated above, prosecution has not been able to prove its case u/s. 10 of the POCSO Act. For the applicability of the Section 354A and 354B IPC no particular age of the victim is required. Victim H was examined in Court as PW1, she stated her age to be of 7 years. The evidence was recorded by the undersigned, had it appeared to the Court that the victim H was looking more than of her stated age, this Court would have given its observation during the examination of the child. If required, the defence could have called the record from her school, if they could have derived any advantage from them. No such record has been summoned. Hence, there is no merit in this contention of ld. Counsel for the defence.
21. It is further argued by ld. Counsel for defence that the testimony of Shri Kamal Mandal (PW2) is full of contradictions and hence, the same is not reliable. Although as per his statement Ex.PW2/A, he was at home at the time of the incident and his daughter returned back home weeping, he inquired from her about the reason and then she allegedly told the entire incident whereas in his deposition in the Court as PW2 he has categorically stated that when he had returned back from job at about 7pm, his wife had told him about the STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 11 of page 20 -:12:- incident and that police had already carried their investigation and prepared paper etc. and apprehended the accused before he reached home in the evening. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has controverted the said contention and had stated that the said contradictions are not material. In my view there is no merit in the contention of the defence. Although, from the deposition in the court, it is clear that he was not present at home at the time of the incident and that it was his wife who had told him about the incident in the evening and the police already carried out their investigation and prepared papers etc. and apprehended the accused much before he reached at home but, in my view, because of the said reason the entire case of the prosecution does not become doubtful. It has been held in a number of cases that benefit of the defect in the investigation of the case should not be given to the accused unless and until it is of this nature that it would prejudice the accused. As stated above the testimony of the victim H and her cousin Chanda is reliable and trustworthy and hence, it would not make any difference, if police chose to register the FIR on the complaint of father of the victim H only when he returned back from work in the evening, instead of registering the FIR on the complaint of her mother or any other person of the family to whom she confided about the incident immediately after coming to home.
22. Ld. Counsel for the defence has further pointed out STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 12 of page 20 -:13:- certain contradictions in the statement of victim H in support of his arguments that her testimony is not reliable. It is argued that in the testimony before the Court, she has stated that accused had tore her clothes i.e. Jeans Pant. But, she did not mention about the Jeans Pant in her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW1/DA. It is further argued that in her deposition she had stated at the time of the incident, she started shouting, but she had not said this in her earlier statement Ex.PW1/DA. It is further pointed out that in the deposition before the court, she stated that in the meantime Krachan Bhaiya came who rescued her from the accused, but in her statement Ex.PW1/DA, she has not mentioned about Krachan Bhaiya and in the statement, she only stated that people had come who rescued her from the accused. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has controverted the said contention and it is argued by him that the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy. In my view, the contradictions pointed out by ld. Defence counsel are not substantial in nature. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has death with as what are the normal discrepancies and what are the material discrepancies in the case reported as State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki 1981 Cri.L.J 1012, which is extracted as under:
"...... normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 13 of page 20 -:14:- deposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized".
In my view the contradictions pointed out by ld. Counsel for accused are not of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. It has been held above that the testimony of the prosecutrix is trustworthy. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvement on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution, should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety.
23. It is further argued by ld. Defence counsel that as per victim H she was rescued by one Krachan Bhaiya but the said Krachan has not been cited as a witness. It is further argued that there is nothing on record as to who said Krachan was and why he has not been made a witness in the present case. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has controverted the same. In my view, there is no merit in this contention of the defence as well. Although it is correct that there is no investigation about the said person and the said person has not been cited as a witness but that in itself should not be a ground to throw case of STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 14 of page 20 -:15:- the prosecution. It has been held in a number of cases that benefit of the defect in the investigation of the case should not be given to the accused unless and until it is of this nature that it would prejudice the accused. Moreover, it is noticed that members of public are reluctant to join the investigation and come forward and depose, especially in criminal trial for various reasons. In the case of State of A.P. Vs S. Rayappa & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 512 . Hon'ble Supreme Court commented upon the reason for reluctance of public persons to join as witness in criminal cases. In para No.7 of the report, it was observed as under:-
"On the contrary it is now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the Court especially in criminal cases because varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They are being threatened, intimidating and at the top of all they subjected to lengthy cross examination".
Hence, non-investigation on the aspect of the said person and the fact that he has not been cited as a witness does not go to the root of the matter and the same does not much affect the case of the prosecution.
24. It is further argued by ld. Counsel for the defence STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 15 of page 20 -:16:- that the testimony of PW3 Ms. Chanda Kumari is also doubtful and the same does not inspire confidence. He has argued that Ms. Chanda Kumari has deposed in her cross examination that the father of the victim H was present in the jhuggi when they had gone to Sauchalaya but Shri Kamal Mandal (PW2) has categorically deposed that he was not present at home at the time of the incident and it was his wife who had told him about the incident in the evening, when he returned back from work and by that time police had already carried out the its investigation and prepared papers etc. It is further pointed out that Ms. Chanda Kumari (PW3) has deposed that her sister H had become unconscious and one doctor had come to see her condition and she regained consciousness after about one our and at that moment, she was told by H that she had become unconscious in the latrine. This is controverted by ld. Addl. PP for the State, who has argued that these contradictions are minor in nature. As stated above, the testimony of victim H is trustworthy. The incident of the accused taking her in the latrine and molesting her must be a shock to a small child of 7 years and as a result of the same, it was not unnatural if she may have become unconscious for some time. But in my view that in itself would not affect the case of the prosecution. As stated above, the victim and her cousin have correctly identified the accused in Court as perpetrator of the crime.
STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 16 of page 20 -:17:-
25. It is further argued by ld. Counsel for the defence that arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW2/B is doubtful because it does not bear the signatures of Ct. Mahesh, although, as per the case of the prosecution, Ct. Mahesh was a witness to the arrest of the accused. It is controverted by ld. Addl. PP for the State. It is correct that Ex.PW2/B does not bear the signatures of Ct. Mahesh, although, he was allegedly witness to the arrest of the accused. But, in my view that in itself would not be a ground to see the case of the prosecution with doubtful eyes. It has been held above that arrest of the accused Bijender from the spot has been amply proved from the testimony of victim H, Chanda Kumari (PW3) and the police officials, who had come to the spot. Ct. Mahesh and SI Surender have also deposed that when they reached at the spot they had found that the accused was being apprehended by the public and since the public had beaten him he was also medically examined in the hospital. Hence, the arrest of the accused from the spot is clearly proved and the same is beyond doubt. In these circumstances, even if the arrest memo of the accused does not bear the signatures of Ct. Mahesh, it is not significant.
26. In totality of the facts and circumstances, accused Bijender is convicted for offence u/s. 354A/354B IPC, however he is acquitted for offence u/s. 10 of the POCSO Act.
STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 17 of page 20 -:18:-
27. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence separately.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEEPAK GARG) TODAY i.e. ON 25.08.2014 ASJ -01:(NORTH):ROHINI:DELHI STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 18 of page 20 -:19:-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01: NORTH: ROHINI:DELHI SESSIONS CASE NO:142/13 FIR NO:160/13 PS : SHAHBAD DAIRY U/S: 354A/354B IPC.
STATE
VERSUS
BIJENDER S/O. SHRI RAM AWATAR
R/O. H.NO.B-5/30, SHAHBAD DAIRY,
DELHI. .......CONVICT
ORDER ON SENTENCE
01.09.2014
Present: Shri A.K. Gupta, ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Bijender is in JC.
Shri O.P. Sharma, ld. Counsel for the accused.
Vide Judgment dated 25.08.2014, accused Bijender has been convicted for the offence u/s. 354A and 354B IPC.
It is argued by ld. Counsel for the convict Bijender that, he is a young boy of 25 years and he has no previous criminal antecedents. It is further argued that he is the eldest among the siblings and his old aged parents and five siblings are dependent upon him and he is the only bread earner of his family hence, a lenient view may be taken.
On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that, he deserves full sentence as prescribed by the said provisions.
STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 19 of page 20 -:20:- Though, the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the defence put forward the mitigating factors in the case, but this court cannot loose its sight of the fact that, he took a small girl of seven years into Sauchalaya and molested her by tearing her cloths i.e. Jeans pant. Such type of assault is not only physical but also mental for a child of tender years and it comes in the way of progress of the child in life.
In totality of the facts and circumstances, convict Bijender is sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years for the offence u/s. 354A IPC. He is also sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years for the offence u/s. 354B IPC and he is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine SI for one month.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is given to the convict and the imprisonment already undergone by him shall be set off against the substantive sentence awarded to him.
Copy of Judgment and that of sentence be given to the convict free of cost today itself free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (DEEPAK GARG) TODAY i.e. ON 01.09.2014 ASJ -01:(NORTH):ROHINI:DELHI STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 20 of page 20