Delhi District Court
State vs Mr.Santosh Singh. -:: Page 1 Of 8 ::- on 5 May, 2018
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, WEST,
SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
New Sessions Case Number : 56112/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 36/2015.
State
Versus
Mr. Santosh Singh
Son of Mr.Ambika Singh,
Resident of Village Atarsan, PS Rasoolpur,
District Chaapra, Bihar.
First Information Report Number : 953/14.
Police Station : Patel Nagar.
Under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code
and under sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
Date of filing of the charge sheet : 06.02.2015.
Arguments concluded on : 05.05.2018.
Date of judgment : 05.05.2018.
Appearances: Ms. Nimmi Sisodia, Additional Public Prosecutor forthe
State.
Ms. Shradha Vaid, counsel for Delhi Commission for
Women.
Accused Mr.Santosh Singh on bail with counsel,
Mr.Varun Kumar.
Mother of the prosecutrix with her counsel,
Mr.Mohd.Yusuf.
********************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Santosh Singh, the accused, has been charge sheeted by Police Station Patel Nagar for the offences under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and under sections 8/12 of the Protection New Sessions Case Number : 56112/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 36/2015.
First Information Report Number : 953/2014. Police Station : Patel Nagar.
Under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr.Santosh Singh. -:: Page 1 of 8 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act).
2. Accused Mr.Santosh Singh has been prosecuted on the allegations that for the last few months, prior to the registration of FIR on 06.12.2014, he was repeatedly watching and following to the prosecutrix (who is minor girl and born on 04.04.1998) whenever she went to her school and tuition and also watched her whenever she used to go to the toilet and for taking bath; he was repeatedly following and watching to the prosecutrix when she used to go to school and toilet and capturing her images and making her videos; he had criminally trespassed into the bathroom of the prosecutrix and outraged her modesty when she was bathing and had beaten her; he had again criminally trespassed into the room of the prosecutrix and sat on the prosecutrix and had beaten her and also tried to strangulate her and threatened to kill her with knife and to rape her; he caught the prosecutrix from back side when she went to Prem Nagar market.
3. The name, age, address 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 and Ms.Y is given to the mother of the prosecutrix in order to protect the identity of the prosecutrix.
4. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court of the learned predecessor on 06.02.2015.
New Sessions Case Number : 56112/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 36/2015.
First Information Report Number : 953/2014. Police Station : Patel Nagar.
Under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr.Santosh Singh. -:: Page 2 of 8 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
5. After hearing arguments, a charge for offences under section 12 of the POCSO Act, under sections 354C/354D of the IPC, under section 354 of the IPC and under sections 354/452/323/506 IPC and under section 10 of the POCSO Act and in the alternative under section 354 of the IPC was framed against accused Mr.Santosh Singh vide order dated 10.08.2016 by the learned predecessor of this Court to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. On 28.10.2016, the matter was fixed for the evidence of the prosecutrix. The process issued to the prosecutrix were served but on calling the case, the mother of the prosecutrix had ap- peared and apprised the Court that the prosecutrix is missing since 20.06.2016. She had told to the Court that she suspected that the prosecutrix was still living with accused Mr.Santosh Singh. The Court has recorded the statement of accused, wherein he has denied that the prosecutrix is living him.
7. On 23.01.2018, summons were again ordered to be issued to the witnesses mentioned at serial number 1 and 2 in the list of pros- ecution witnesses (prosecutrix/complainant and her mother re- spectively) by ordinary process as well as through IO, SHO and DCP concerned for prosecution evidence.
8. On 08.03.2018, summons were issued to the PWs -prosecutrix and her mother through DCP concerned is reported that process have been received back with the report that both the witnesses are served. It is reported on the process issued to the prosecutrix that the summons have been served upon her mother. The New Sessions Case Number : 56112/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 36/2015.
First Information Report Number : 953/2014. Police Station : Patel Nagar.
Under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr.Santosh Singh. -:: Page 3 of 8 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
mother of the prosecutrix had appeared before the Court and submitted that the prosecutrix had left the home with the ac- cused and thereafter, she had not returned back and she has been informed that the prosecutrix was with the accused and was liv- ing with him. Accused had, however, denied the same. There- after, fresh summons were ordered to be issued to the pros- ecutrix by ordinary process as well as through IO, SHO and DCP concerned for today i.e. 05.05.2018.
9. The summons issued to the prosecutrix were ordered to be served upon her through SHO, DCP concerned. The report has been furnished that the same have been served upon the mother of the prosecutrix.
10.The mother of the prosecutrix has been examined as PW1 today and has deposed on oath that the prosecutrix is missing since June, 2016 and she has lodged two complaints (Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D) regarding the same.
11.Ms. Y, mother of the prosecutrix (PW1) has deposed in her cross examination on behalf of the accused that "It is correct that I have not witnessed the accused committing any offence against the prosecutrix. It is also correct that I have not seen the accused taking away my daughter. It is correct that what- ever I have deposed regarding the misbehavior of the accused against my daughter is on the basis of the information given to me."
New Sessions Case Number : 56112/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 36/2015.
First Information Report Number : 953/2014. Police Station : Patel Nagar.
Under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr.Santosh Singh. -:: Page 4 of 8 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
12. The prosecutrix is not traceable despite several efforts made by the IO, SHO and DCP concerned. It shall be futile to record tes- timonies of other witnesses, who are formal and official, when the most material witness i.e. the prosecutrix is not traceable. In the given circumstances, the prosecution evidence was closed declining the request of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State for grant of further opportunity to lead further prosecution evidence.
13.Nothing incriminating came forth in prosecution evidence against the accused as the prosecutrix is untraceable and not available at the given address and there is nothing incriminating in the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix against him, therefore, the statement of accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.is hereby dispensed.
14.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.
15.There is no incriminating evidence against the accused Mr.Santosh Singh as the prosecutrix herself is not traceable and her mother is only a hearsay witness.
16.In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable as the most material witness i.e. the prosecutrix is not traceable. New Sessions Case Number : 56112/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 36/2015.
First Information Report Number : 953/2014. Police Station : Patel Nagar.
Under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr.Santosh Singh. -:: Page 5 of 8 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
17.Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused Mr.Santosh Singh is guilty of the charged offences under section 12 of the POCSO Act, under sections 354C/354 D of the IPC, under section 354 of the IPC and under sections 354/452/323/506 IPC and under section 10 of the POCSO Act and in the alternate under section 354 of the IPC
18.There is no material on record to show that for the last few months prior to the registration of FIR on 06.12.2014, accused was repeatedly watching and following to the prosecutrix (who is minor girl and born on dated 04.04.1998) whenever she went to her school and tuition and also watched her whenever she used to go to the toilet and for taking bath; he was repeatedly following and watching to the prosecutrix when she used to go to school and toilet and capturing her images and making her videos ; he had criminally trespassed into the bathroom of the prosecutrix and outraged her modesty when she was bathing and beaten her; he had again criminally trespassed into the room of the prosecutrix and sat on the prosecutrix and beaten her and also tried to strangulate her and threatened to kill her with knife and to rape her; he caught the prosecutrix from back side when she went to Prem Nagar market.
19.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 case against accused Mr.Santosh Singh for the offences of sexual harassment, of stalking, of trespassing into the bathroom of the New Sessions Case Number : 56112/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 36/2015.
First Information Report Number : 953/2014. Police Station : Patel Nagar.
Under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr.Santosh Singh. -:: Page 6 of 8 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
prosecutrix, of outraging her modesty, of strangulating the prosecutrix, of threatening to kill her and of catching hold of the prosecutrix from back side.
20.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.Santosh Singh for the offences under section 12 of the POCSO Act, under sections 354C/354 D of the IPC, under section 354 of the IPC and under sections 354/452/323/506 IPC and under section 10 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution has also failed to prove the alternate charge for the offence under section 354 of the IPC
21.Consequently, accused Mr.Santosh Singh is hereby acquitted of the charges for the offences of sexual harassment, of stalking, of trespassing into the bathroom of the prosecutrix, of outraging her modesty, of strangulating the prosecutrix, of threatening to kill her and of catching hold of the prosecutrix from back side punishable under section 12 of the POCSO Act, under sections 354C/354 D of the IPC, under section 354 of the IPC and under sections 354/452/323/506 IPC and under section 10 of the POCSO Act. He is also acquitted of the alternate charge under section 354 of the IPC COMPLAINCE OF SECTION 437-AOF THE CR.P.C. AND OTHER FORMALITIES
22.Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
New Sessions Case Number : 56112/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 36/2015.
First Information Report Number : 953/2014. Police Station : Patel Nagar.
Under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr.Santosh Singh. -:: Page 7 of 8 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
23.Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
24.One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
25.After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record room.
NIVEDITA ANIL Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2018.05.08 10:46:15 +0530 Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 05th day of May, 2018. Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court Under the POCSO Act, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
******************************************************** New Sessions Case Number : 56112/2016.
Old Sessions Case Number : 36/2015.
First Information Report Number : 953/2014. Police Station : Patel Nagar.
Under sections 451/354/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act.
State versus Mr.Santosh Singh. -:: Page 8 of 8 ::-