Delhi District Court
Sc No. 58843/16 State vs . Ram Prakash @ Avinash on 13 March, 2018
SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA MAINI
ASJ01 / SPECIAL JUDGE : POCSO ACT ( NORTH ):
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:
(Sessions Case No.58843/16)
Unique Identification No. 02404R0050952016
FIR No. 02/16
Police Station Mahendra Park
Under Section 363/342/376/506 IPC
& 10 POCSO Act
State V/s Ram Prakash @ Avinash
S/o Budh Ram
R/o H.No. B43, Ram Garh
Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
......Accused
Date of institution of case 30.01.2016
Date of arguments 05.03.2018 &
08.03.2018 &
12.03.2018
Judgment Pronounced on 13.03.2018
Decision Convicted
J U D G M E N T
1.The accused Ram Prakash @ Avinash is facing trial in the Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 1 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash present case on allegations of having kidnapped, wrongfully confined and committed penetrative sexual assault / rape upon the victim D (identity withheld), aged about 11 years, and having threatened her with life.
2. The facts in brief, which are borne out from the record are that previously the victim alongwith her family was residing in Ramgarh and accused Ram Prakash @ Avinash was living opposite their house and was having an evil eye upon her. Due to this reason, the victim alongwith her family members shifted to I Block, Jahangir Puri about three months prior to the lodging of the instant FIR.
3. On 30.12.2015 at about 8 PM, after purchasing medicines from Anand Maya Hospital, when the victim was returning back to her house, the accused Ram Prakash @ Avinash met her on the way and on the pretext of showing her his room, took her to his house at B43, 3 rd Floor, Ramgarh, Delhi, where nobody else was present. The accused bolted the door from inside, gagged the victim's mouth with his hand and thereafter took off the clothes of the victim and committed penetrative sexual assault / rape upon her. The accused threatened the victim not to disclose about the incident to anyone, else he would kill her. The victim came back home and though immediately she did not tell anyone but on the asking of her sister, she narrated the entire incident to her sister, who called the police at 100 number on 01.01.2016.
4. The information to the police was reduced into writing vide DD No. 16 A, which was assigned to SI Seema, who alongwith L/Ct. Ritu and Ct. Satya Prakash reached at the spot, where the victim and her sister Ms. R Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 2 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash (identity withheld) were met, and on inquiry, the victim told that Avinash had committed wrong act with her. NGO personnels were informed and the victim was got medically examined at BJRM Hospital vide MLC No. 109491/16, and the doctor concerned handed over the Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Ki, two pullandas containing the outer and inner clothes of the victim alongwith the sample seal, to the IO, who seized the same vide appropriate seizure memos. IO recorded the statement of the victim, and on the basis of the same, prepared the Tehrir / rukka and got the instant case registered through Ct. Satya Prakash.
5. On 02.01.2016, the victim was produced before the concerned MM and on an application moved by the IO, concerned MM recoded the statement of the victim u/s 164 CrPC, wherein she narrated the entire incident to Ld. MM. At the instance of the victim, the accused Ram Prakash @ Avinash was arrested and got medically examined at BJRM Hospital vide MLC No. 109497/16, and his exhibits / samples were obtained and seized by the IO. Accused was produced before the court concerned, from where he was sent to JC. On 04.01.2016, the exhibits of the victim as well as accused were sent to FSL for expert opinion. The potency test of accused was got conducted at RML Hospital vide MLC No. 0050949/16. The age proof of the victim was obtained from Rajkiya Madhmik Vidhalya, PS Pakri Dayal, Poorvi Champaran, Bihar, and since the victim was found to be aged about 12 years, section 10 POCSO Act was added. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court. Subsequently, the FSL result was obtained and filed in the court by the IO.
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 3 of 36
SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash
6. On appearance in the court, the accused was supplied with the copies, and after hearing the counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, since prima facie case was made out, the accused was charged for the offence 363 IPC and u/s 6 POCSO Act in alternative u/s 376 (2)(i) IPC and a case u/s 506(II)/342 IPC, on 25.02.2016 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, since the offence of penetrative sexual assault / rape was alleged to be committed upon the victim D and the offence was simultaneously covered under general law i.e. u/s 376 (2)(i) IPC and not in alternative, the charge was amended accordingly, and amended charge for the offence punishable u/s 363/376 (2)(i)/506(II)/342 IPC and charge for the offence punishable u/s 6 POCSO Act was framed against the accused on 08.03.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State stated that after amendment of the charge, no fresh witness was to be examined, nor any existing witness was required to be examined afresh, nor was there any requirement for any modification in the statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC already recorded. Similarly, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused also stated that after amendment of the charge, he adopts the same examination and cross examination of the witnesses, which has already been conducted, and that no witness was required to be cross examined afresh, nor was there any requirement for any modification in the statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC already recorded and opted not to lead any defence evidence.
7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses in all, out of which PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 7, PW 8, PW 9, PW10, PW 11, PW 12, PW 17 and PW 18 are formal witnesses, PW 13, Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 4 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash PW 14, PW 15 and PW 16 are witnesses of investigation, while the PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are the material witnesses, being the victim, her mother and her sister respectively.
FORMAL WITNESSES
8. PW 4 Mr. Rajeev deposed that he is the owner of property no. B 43, Ram Garh, Jahangir Puri, and one room on the second floor of the said property had been rented out by him to accused Ram Prakash @ Avinash, about 23 months prior to the incident, but no rent agreement was executed in respect of the said tenancy. He further deposed that the accused was residing alone in the said room.
9. PW 5 ASI Dharampal Singh deposed that on 01.01.2016, at about 4.00 PM, while posted as Duty Officer at PS Mahendra Park, on receipt of a rukka sent by SI Seem and brought by Ct. Sat Prakash, he got recorded the present FIR Ex. PW 5/A and made his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW5/B and also issued a certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW 5/C.
10. PW 6 Ct. Anil Kumar deposed that on 04.01.2016, on the directions of MHC(M), he took four sealed pullandas alognwith two sample seals to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 2/21/16, and after depositing the same with FSL, he obtained the acknowledgement receipt from FSL and handed over the same to MHC(M). He proved on record the Road Certificate bearing RC No. 2/21/16 as Ex. PW 6/A and the acknowledgement receipt issued by FSL as Ex. PW6/B. He further Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 5 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash deposed that during the time, the case property remained in his possession, it was not tampered with, in any manner.
11. PW 7 Dr. Saroo, CMO, RML Hospital deposed that on 04.01.2016, patient Ram Prakash was brought to the said hospital for his potency test and he examined the said patient Ram Prakash, aged about 22 years, vide MLC Ex. PW 7/A and referred him to Department of Urology for his potency test.
12. PW 8 Dr. Deepak, CMO, BJRM Hospital deposed that he has been deputed by the Medical Superintendent to deposed on behalf of Dr. Deepak and Dr. Gautam, who had worked with him, and he was well acquainted with their signatures, as he had seen them preparing and signing the documents. After seeing the MLC No. 10941 pertaining to victim / female D @ T, aged about 14 years, he deposed that the same was prepared by Dr. Gautm Kumar and Dr. Deepak, and proved their signatures at points A and B, and proved the MLC as Ex. PW 8/A.
13. PW 9 Dr. Avanish Tripathi, CMO BJRM Hospital deposed that on 01.01.2016 he examined the accused Ram Prakash @ Avinash, vide MLC No. 109497 Ex. PW 9/A. He further deposed that he collected the blood sample of the accused and handed over the same to the concerned police official, in sealed condition.
14. PW 10 Ms. Rajni Ranga, Ld. MM deposed that on 02.01.2016, on an application being assigned to her, she recorded the statement of the Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 6 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash victim u/s 164 CrPC, which is already Ex. PW 1/B, and also issued a certificate regarding the statement being the correct version of the witness. After recording of the statement of the victim u/s 164 CrPC, she allowed for supply of a copy of the same to the IO, vide her order on the application Ex. PW 10/A.
15. PW 11 Dr. R. Kappu, Medical Officer BJRM Hospital deposed that on 01.01.2016, she examined the victim D @ T vide MLC No. 109491 already Ex. PW 8/A. She further deposed that on examination of the victim, she found that the hymen of the victim was absent and Orifice was found to be 2 x 2 cm and bleeding per vagina was present.
16. PW 12 HC Anju Bala deposed that on 01.01.2016, while posted as Duty Officer at PS Mahendra Park, on receipt of information, through wireless operator, regarding rape of a girl near Anand Maya Hospital, she recorded DD No. 16 A Ex. PW12/A, which was handed over to SI Seema.
17. PW 17 Dr. Manasa T, SR, Department of Urology, RML Hospital deposed that on 04.01.2016, he conducted the potency test of patient Ram Prakash and his report is already the part of the MLC already Ex. PW 7/A, wherein he had opined that there is nothing to suggest that the patient is incapable of performing sexual intercourse.
18. PW 18 Sh. Asim Kumar Singh, Incharge Head Master, GMS Pakri Dayal Girls School, Motihari, Bihar brought on record the Admission Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 7 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash & Withdrawal Register maintained in the said school and deposed that as per record, a girl child / victim D was admitted in the said school in 3 rd class on 20.06.2011 vide admission no. 135, and her date of birth is 15.01.2004, and proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW 18/A. A certificate in respect of the date of birth of the student D, issued by the Principal of the said school, was proved on record by PW 18 as Ex. PW18/B.
19. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, PW 18 admitted that no birth certificate issued by any Government agency, was submitted by the parents of the student at the time of her admission and that the date of birth of student was entered in the school records, as per the declaration made by the parents of the student.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
20. PW 13 Ct. Satya Prakash deposed that on 01.01.2016, on receipt of DD No. 16 A by the IO, he alognwith Ct. Ritu accompanied the IO and reached at I1542, Jahangir Puri, where they met the complainant T @ D. IO recorded the statement of the victim. The victim and her sister were taken to BJRM Hospital in the custody of Ct. Ritu, for medical examination of the victim. He further deposed that the IO prepared the Tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of the case. He reached the PS and got the present case FIR registered and after registration of the case, he took the copy of the FIR and original rukka to Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 8 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash BJRM Hospital and handed over the same to IO.
21. PW 14 Ct. Ritu deposed that on 01.01.2016, on receipt of DD No. 16 A by the IO, she alognwith Ct. Satya Prakash accompanied the IO and reached at I1542, Jahangir Puri, where they met the complainant T @ D. IO recorded the statement of the victim. She alongwtih the IO took the victim and her sister were taken to BJRM Hospital, for medical examination of the victim. After medical examination of the victim, the doctor concerned handed over to her the sealed exhibits of the victim, which in turn, she handed over to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 14/A. She further deposed that IO prepared the Tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Satya Prakash for registration of the case. She further deposed that thereafter the victim was taken to H.No. 43, Jahangir Puri, where on the pointing out of the victim, IO prepared the site plan. At the instance of the victim, the accused Avinash was also apprehended. On the call of the IO, Ct. Uttam Singh reached at the spot and accused was handed over into the custody of Ct. Uttam Singh.
22. PW 15 Ct. Uttam Singh deposed that on 01.01.2016, accused Ram Prakash was handed over to him by the IO, and he took the accused and reached at B43, 3 rd Floor, Ram Garh, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and the IO prepared the site plan. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide arrest memo Ex. PW15/A and Ex. PW 15/B respectively. He further deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW 15/C was recorded by the IO. He further deposed Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 9 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash that he took the accused to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination. After medical examination of the accused, the doctor concerned handed over the sealed exhibits of the accused to him, which in turn, he handed over to IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 15/D.
23. PW 16 SI Seema deposed that on 01.01.2016, on receipt of DD No. 16 A, she alongwith Ct. Ritu and Ct. Satya Prakash reached at I 1542, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where they met the complainant D @ T, and she recorded the statement of the victim. She got the victim medically examined at BJRM Hospital and seized the sealed exhibits of the victim vide seizure memo already Ex. PW14/A. She prepared the Tehrir Ex. PW16/A and handed over the same to Ct. Satya Prakash for registration of the case. Thereafter, she alongwith the victim went to H.No. 43, Jahangir Puri and at the instance of the victim, prepared the site plan Ex. PW16/B and arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide arrest memo already Ex. PW 15/A and personal search memo Ex. PW 15/B respectively. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused already Ex. PW 15/C. He got the accused medically examined through Ct. Uttam and seized the sealed exhibits of the accused vide seizure memo already Ex. PW15/D. On 02.01.2016, she produced the victim before Ld. MM and on an application Ex. PW16/C moved by her, Ld. MM recorded the statement of the victim u/s 164 CrPC, which is already Ex. PW 10/A. She got deposited all the exhibits with FSL and got conducted the potency test of the accused at RML Hospital. On 19.01.2016, she got collected the age proof of the victim from village Pakdi Dayal, Poorvi Champaran, Bihar. Later, she collected the FSL Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 10 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash result and proved on record as Ex. F1.
24. In her crossexamination by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, she deposed that she inspected the spot but did not find any blood stains at the spot. She further deposed that she met the victim, but no injury was found on her body. She further deposed that during investigation, she came to know that earlier the victim and her family were the neighbours of accused and his family, but later on the victim and her family members left the said locality. She further deposed that during investigation, it did not come to her knowledge that victim used to call the accused from the mobile phone of her elder sister or that the victim and accused were having good friendship.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
25. The prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined the victim D @ T as PW 1, who disclosed her age to be 14 years at the time of her examination. After conducting preliminary examination of the victim by putting certain questions to her to assess the competency of victim child to give rational answers, on being satisfied, the statement of the victim was recorded, wherein she deposed as under :
"Accused Avinash (present in the court today and identified correctly) was residing in front of our house. Accused was having an evil eye on me as such, we vacated that house and shifted in IBlock in Jahangirpuri. On 30.12.2015, I was coming back after taking medicines Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 11 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash from Anand Maya Hospital and on the way, accused met me in front of his house and asked me as to where I was going. Accused then took me to his room on pretext of showing to me his room. There was nobody else in that room. Accused then after removing my clothes, committed rape upon me and threatened me not to disclose the incident to anybody otherwise he would kill me.
After coming back to my house, I was washing my clothes as the clothes got blood stains. My sister saw me washing my clothes and she insisted me to tell her as to what has happened. Then I disclosed the entire incident to my sister. Then, my sister went to the house of accused to reason out as to why he has done so but the accused was not found at his house. Thereafter, my sister reported the matter to the police. We went to the PS where my statement was recorded.
At this stage, witness identifies her signatures at point A on her statement which is now Ex. PW1/A. I showed the place of occurrence to the IO. I was also taken for my medical examination at BJRM Hospital. My statement was also recorded by the Ld. MM.
At this stage, an envelope sealed with the seal of RR is opened and the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is taken out. The same is shown to the witness on which she identifies her signatures at point A. The same is now Ex. PW1/B."
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 12 of 36
SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash
26. In her crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the victim / PW 1 deposed as under :
"For about 56 months we stayed in front of the house of accused. It is wrong to suggest that I was having regular contact with accused and became his friend. It is wrong to suggest that I used to call the accused from mobile no. 9643114200 of my sister to accused on his mobile no. 8285153980. It is wrong to suggest that my sister had a quarrel with the accused. On the date of incident, all my family members were present. I had informed my family that I was going to purchase medicines. I left home at about 8 PM. I stayed for about 1520 minutes in the hospital.
There were many other persons present when I met the accused. My sister had reported the matter on 01.01.2016. My sister had gone to the house of accused on 30 & 31.12.2016. But he could not be found and thereafter, my sister reported the matter to the police. I had taken the medicine from the hospital. I did not tell the police that the Doctor was not available in the hospital and I could not take any medicine, infact, Doctor met me and I took the medicine from him. No prescription was given to me by the Doctor.
It is wrong to suggest that no sexual assault was committed by the accused upon me or for this reason the Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 13 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash incident was not reported to the police on the alleged date of incident. It is wrong to suggest that my mother and sister was having enmity with the accused and as such, under their pressure, I have deposed falsely. It is wrong to suggest that my sister and mother used to object to my friendly relations with the accused or that for that reason also the accused has been falsely implicated."
27. Smt. R / mother of the victim entered the witness box as PW 2 and deposed that she has three children and one day, her daughter / victim D @ T disclosed her that accused Avinash, who was earlier residing in front of their house, had committed wrong act with her. She further deposed that they had vacated that earlier accommodation, as the accused was keeping an evil eye on the prosecutrix.
28. In her crossexamination by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused, PW 2 deposed that she was married about 20 years ago, and her elder daughter was born within one year of her marriage, and there is difference of three years between the birth of her elder daughter and the prosecutrix. She did not lodge any complaint against the accused after she had come to know that accused had an evil eye on her daughter. She had noticed blood stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix, and on that day, matter was not reported to the police. She denied that the accused was in contact with prosecutrix on her mobile or that no incident of sexual assault upon her daughter ever took place.
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 14 of 36
SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash
29. Ms. R, sister of the victim entered the witness box as PW 3 and deposed as under :
"Prosecutrix D is my younger sister. She is three years younger to me. On 30.12.2015, my sister (prosecutrix) went to buy medicine at about 8 PM and after about an hour she came back. At that time, her clothes were wet. I asked her about the reason of having wet clothes but she did not reply. After my persistent inquiry, prosecutrix disclosed that accused Avinash (present in the court today and identified correctly) who was earlier residing in front of our house, took her to his room and there he committed sexual assault upon her.
On the next morning, I went to the house of accused but his house was found locked. Then, I inquired from neighbours of accused upon which I was told that he has not come to his room since yesterday. Again on 01.01.2016, I went to the house of accused. There accused met me there and I called at 100 from my mobile no. 9643114200. Police came and recorded the statement of my sister. Then, my sister was taken for her medical examination. My sister also pointed out about the place of occurrence and identity of accused to the IO. Police also recorded my statement."
30. In her crossexamination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the sister of the victim / PW 3 deposed as under :
"Prior to one year of the incident, we used to reside in front Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 15 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash of the house of accused. I do not know since how long accused was misbehaving with my sister. It is correct that prosecutrix informed us when she left the house for purchasing medicine from a Doctor. Entire clothes of my daughter were soaked with blood. It is correct that matter was not reported to the police on 30.12.2015. I did not find any person at the house of accused who could tell me that whether my sister had come there on the date of incident or not. On the next day, clothes of prosecutrix were washed. When the clothes were handed over to the police, clothes were already washed. Vol. Clothes were still having some blood stains.
It is wrong to suggest that accused was in contact with prosecutrix on her mobile. It is wrong to suggest that no incident of sexual assault happened with my sister or that in order to falsely implicate the accused, the present complaint was made. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely."
31. After close of PE, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein he denied the prosecution case in its entirety, and pleaded his innocence. He further stated he was having good friendship with the victim, and when this fact came in the knowledge of her mother, the victim at the instance of her mother and sister, falsely implicated him in this case. He further deposed that he has not committed rape / penetrative sexual assault upon the victim ever, either with her consent or Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 16 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash without her consent. However, he opted not to lead defence evidence.
32. I have heard Ms. Neeta Gupta, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Arun Sherawat, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State has contended that the victim as well as other material witnesses, being the mother and sister of the victim, have supported the prosecution case in its entirety. The victim has categorically identified the accused to be the culprit and has also described the act / sexual assault, to which she was subjected, very vividly. The testimony of mother and sister of the victim is very explicit that soon after the commission of offence, they found the victim washing her blood stained clothes and on the insistence of her sister, the victim narrated the entire incident, and they in their testimony have reproduced the same convincingly. The penetrative sexual assault / rape, to which the victim child was subjected, is also very vividly corroborated from the MLC of the victim and testimony of PW 11, who deposed about the hymen of victim being absent and orifice being 2 x 2 cm, there being bleedings per vagina. It is further contended that the chain of events which led to the arrival of police, lodging of FIR, taking the victim to hospital of medical examination, arrest of the accused at the instance of the victim, his medical examination and thereafter getting conduct his potency result, go to the root of the matter. The reporting of the offence to the police and investigation thereafter has been a prompt one, and the guilt of the accused is proved to the hilt, by the prosecution.
33. Per Contra, Sh. Arun Sherawat, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused has stated that the accused has been falsely implicated in the Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 17 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash instant case by the sister and mother of the victim, as he was having friendly relations with the victim, and they were against their friendship. It is contended that the victim herself used to call the accused on his mobile phone and when the sister and mother of the victim came to know about the friendship of the accused with the victim, they got the accused falsely implicated in this case, through the victim. It is stated that the accused is innocent and that he be acquitted in the instant case.
34. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law.
AGE OF THE VICTIM
35. To ascertain the age of the victim D, the prosecution examined PW 18 Sh. Asim Kumar Singh, Head Master, GMS Pakri Dayal Girls School, Motihari, Bihar, where the victim was studying. PW 18 proved on record the extracts of the Admission / Withdrawal register maintained in the said school as Ex. 18/A, as per which victim girl D was admitted in the said school in 3rd class on 20.06.2011, vide admission no. 135 and her date of birth is mentioned as 15.01.2004. He also proved on record the certificate issued by the Principal of the said school certifying therein that the date of birth of the victim is 15.01.2004 as Ex. PW18/B. No doubt, in the cross examination of the said witness by Mr. Sidhant Antil, Ld. Amicus Curiae, it came on record that no birth certificate issued by any Government agency was given by the parents of the student / victim Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 18 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash D, at the time of her admission, but no dispute regarding the aforementioned date of birth of the child has been raised in the cross examination of the said witness, nor is there any suggestion that the said date of birth of the victim was an incorrect one or that the student / victim was much elder than what was professed by the parents of the student at the time when they made a declaration of the date of birth of the student in the school.
36. PW 2 Smt. R / mother of the victim has categorically stated that the victim D @ T was aged about 14 years, at that time i.e. at the time of her examination on 26.05.2016, an assertion, which has not been controverted in her crossexamination on behalf of the accused. As per the school record brought on record, on the date of occurrence, the victim was below 12 years of age, and as per the inference from the testimony of PW 2 / mother of victim, the victim being 14 years of age at the time of recording of testimony of PW 2, she was around 13 years of age at the time of incident. PW 2, in her testimony, at the time of her introduction itself, has stated that she is illiterate and she did not give the age of her daughter / victim precisely but it was given approximately to be 13 years, which is quite justified. In view of the above, in the absence of any other document contrary to the school record brought on record by PW 18 as Ex. PW 18/A and Ex. PW 18/B, it is accepted that the correct date of birth has been mentioned in her school record, and her date of birth is 15.01.2004 and as such on the date of incident, she was aged about 11 years and 11 months and hence, the victim was a "Child" within the meaning given under section 2 (d) of the POCSO Act.
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 19 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash MEDICAL AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE
37. The medical evidence, which came to the fore in the instant case, is in the form of the MLC of the victim D, which was proved on record by PW 8 Dr. Deepak, CMO BJRM Hospital as Ex. PW 8/A, which shows that firstly the victim D was examined by Dr. Gautam, Junior Resident Doctor, and on local examination of the victim, it was opined by the doctor concerned that no fresh injury was seen at the time of her medical examination. Thereafter, the victim was referred to S.R. Gynae for internal medical examination, where she was examined by Dr. R. Kappu, who on internal medical examination of the victim observed that hymen of the victim was absent and orifice was found to be 2 x 2 cm, and bleeding per vagina was present. The exhibits of the victim were collected and handed over to the concerned police official, who in turn handed over the same to IO, who seized the same and subsequently the exhibits of the victim were sent to FSL.
38. The accused was also got medically examined at BJRM Hospital by Dr. Avanish Tripathi, vide MLC Ex. PW 9/A, wherein it was opined that no fresh physical injury was found on his person. The blood sample of the accused was taken, sealed and was handed over to the concerned police official, and same was later sent to FSL for expert opinion. Thereafter, the potency test of the accused was got conducted and PW17 Dr. Manasa T, SR Department of Urology, RML Hospital, who conducted the potency test of the accused, proved on record the potency test report of the accused as Ex. PW 7/A, wherein it has been opined by him that Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 20 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash there is nothing to suggest that the person examined by him is not capable of performing sexual intercourse.
39. The exhibits of the victim as well as that of accused were sent to FSL for expert opinion, and the FSL result Ex. F1 was brought on record by the IO and the result of the analysis reads as under :
"Result Alleles from the source of Exhibit '5' (blood sample of accused) were accounted in alleles from the source of exhibits '2', '3a', & '3b' (exhibits of victim). Alleles from the source of Exhibit '1g' were accounted in alleles from the source of exhibits '1b', '1c1', '1c2' & '1e' (exhibits of victim). Conclusion :
DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on Exhibits is sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit 5 (blood gauze of accused) is matching with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 2, 3a and 3b...."
TESTIMONY OF MATERIAL WITNESSES
40. Material witnesses : The victim, her mother and her sister were examined by the prosecution as PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 respectively. The accused has been charged for the offence of having kidnapped the victim out of the lawful guardianship of her parents, having confined her in his room and thereafter having committed penetrative sexual assault / rape Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 21 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash upon her and also having threatened her with life not to disclose about the incident to anyone. The victim in her testimony was firm and consistent throughout, not just as regards the assertions made by her in her complaint Ex. PW1/A but also in her statement before the Ld. MM u/s 164 CrPC on 21.01.2016, which is Ex. PW 1/B, and thereafter also in her testimony recorded in the court as PW 1. In her testimony as PW 1, the victim has deposed that she knew the accused Ram Prakash @ Avinash, as he was earlier residing in front of their house and was having an evil eye upon her, due to which they even vacated their previous house and shifted to another house in the same colony in Jahangir Puri, and thereafter on the fateful night of 30.12.1015, she was subjected to a graver offence i.e. penetrative sexual assault / rape. This factum that the accused was having an evil eye on the victim was corroborated by the victim's mother Smt. R, who was examined as PW 2. In the lengthy and grilling crossexamination of both the victim and her mother PW 2, this factum has not been refuted on behalf of the accused, by either denying this factum and giving a suggestion regarding the incorrectness of the said factum, though this factum about the accused having an evil eye on the victim, has been denied by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. It is also not denied that the victim and her family shifted from their erstwhile house to Jahangir Puri and considering the fact that even after the change of residence by the victim, as per the testimony of the victim, accused continued in his pursuit of the victim, is indicative enough, about the possibility of correctness of the allegations made by the victim and her mother, against the accused.
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 22 of 36
SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash
41. As per the present complaint, on 30.12.2015 at about 8.00 PM, while the victim was coming back to her house in Jahangir Puri after taking medicines from a hospital, the accused met her and asked her where she was going and thereafter took her to his room on the pretext of showing her, his room, where he removed the clothes of the victim and committed penetrative sexual assault / rape upon her. The victim having gone to get some medicines from the hospital, is corroborated by PW2 and PW 3 and in the crossexamination of all the three witnesses, Ld. Counsel for the accused was unable to elicit anything from them, which would make a dent in their testimony regarding the whereabouts of the victim or she not having left the house for fetching medicines. The act of penetrative sexual assault, generally when committed, is an act which is privy only to the two persons involved in the act i.e. the offender and the victim, and therefor to prove the offence, it is the ocular testimony of the victim, coupled with the testimony of the witnesses to whom the incident was disclosed by the victim so soon after the commission of the offence, with their testimony as regards the sequence of incident, becomes admissible and as worthwhile as that of the victim herself. Other circumstances, which point a solid finger towards the commission of that offence, are of vital importance and it is those circumstances, which require the concerted attention.
42. The victim, soon after the incident, returned back to her house and immediately started washing her clothes, since as per her testimony, her clothes were blood stained. She has further testified that her sister saw her washing clothes and insisted upon her to tell as to what had happened. The sister of the victim examined as PW 3 supports the Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 23 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash version of the victim totally, as it is her testimony that after about an hour of having left the house for buying medicines, the victim came back and her clothes were wet and on her insistence and persistent inquiries, she disclosed about the accused Ram Prakash @ Avinash having committed sexual assault upon her. The incident also came into the knowledge of the mother of the victim / PW 2, whose version was almost identical and she deposed on the same lines as her two daughters and she also deposed that she noticed blood stains on the clothes of the victim. During the course of crossexamination of all the three material witnesses, the clothes of the victim being blood stained, is not refuted at all, either directly or obliquely or even by giving any suggestion regarding the incorrectness of the said assertion of the clothes of the victim not being blood stained. Even in his statement u/s 313 CrPC, this incriminating factum has specifically been put to the accused that after coming back home, the victim started washing her clothes, which had become blood stained, which has not been denied by the accused, though he has only shown his lack of knowledge about this factum. The said clothes of the victim, though washed as per the testimony of PW 3, were handed over to the police but the said clothes were still having some blood stains. As per the MLC of the victim Ex. PW 8/A, the said clothes were seized by the doctor, who handed over the same to the IO, who seized the same, vide seizure memo duly proved by the IO as Ex. PW 14/A, having been sealed with the seal of Gynae BJRM Hospital Delhi. The said clothes alongwith sexual assault kit and exhibits, all duly sealed by the doctor concerned, were seized by the IO, who deposited the same in the Malkhana and PW 6 Ct. Anil Kumar, deposited the sealed exhibits of the victim with the seal intact, in the FSL vide Road Certificate Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 24 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash Ex. PW 6/A and the FSL issued the acknowledgement receipt Ex. PW 6/B after receiving the said samples / exhibits of the victim from Ct. Anil Kumar. PW 6 has further testified that that said duly sealed exhibits of the victim, were not tampered with, till the time they were in his custody. As per the FSL result Ex. F1, which is also not refuted, all the pullands received from Ct. Anil Kumar were duly sealed and their seals were intact, out of which Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 were containing the exhibits of the victim, and were duly sealed with the seal of GYNAE BJRM Hospital, which after opening were subjected to DNA analysis. The scrutiny of the said FSL result Ex. F1 clearly shows that the exhibits 2, 3a and 3b i.e. one Sameez having a few brown stains, one lady's shirt having a few brown stains and one pyjami having brown stains respectively, were subjected to DNA analysis and the result is that blood was detected on several exhibits including the exhibits 2, 3a and 3b.
43. It is noteworthy that in the crossexamination of the victim, it was neither denied by the accused that he was having an evil eye on the victim, nor he put an suggestion to her thathe never met the victim on the way nor did he take her to his room on the pretext of showing her, his room. The only suggestion put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the accused is that the victim used to call the accused on his mobile phone from the mobile phone of her sister and that after the sister of the victim had a quarrel with the accused, he was falsely implicated in this case and that no sexual assault has ever been committed by him upon the victim, and the said suggestion has vehemently been denied by the victim. The suggestions regarding false implication of the accused at the hands of the sister of the victim, were also given to PW 2 and PW 3, which have also Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 25 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash been emphatically denied by them. No reason or motive for false implication of the accused has been ascribed by him by giving such a suggestion to PW 2 and PW3, though while giving such a suggestion to the victim, it was elucidated that sister and mother of the victim objected to the friendly relations of the accused with the victim, due to which he was falsely implicated, a suggestion which was again emphatically denied by the victim.
44. The accused despite having been given ample opportunity to lead evidence in his defence, did not bring forth his defence to substantiate his version that he and the victim were having friendly relations and they were having telephonic conversations. Further, the defence put forth by the accused being two fold, rather becomes contrary to each other in as much as, if the victim was having friendly relations with him, why would she depose against him and if any such false implication had to be made by the mother and sister of the victim, through the victim, it would have been done much earlier, when the accused was having an evil eye upon the victim, but they did not make any complaint but rather shifted their residence so that they may get rid of the accused. The accused has not denied that he met the victim and took her to his room on the pretext of showing her his room, establishes one thing very clear that the victim was indeed taken by the accused to his room, on the fateful night of 30.12.2015, while she was returning back home after purchasing medicines. What happened inside that room has categorically and convincingly been brought forth by the victim that she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault / rape by the accused and her version has been corroborated from the firm and cogent testimony of PW 2 and PW3.
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 26 of 36
SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash
The victim was taken by the accused to his room on the pretext of showing her his room, and was subsequently subjected to penetrative sexual assault / rape, with or without consent, being an inconsequential fact, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
45. Therefore, all the three material witnesses come across to be very cogent and reliable witnesses and the sequence of events narrated by them consistently and unbroken chain of events, inspire total confidence, the accused miserably failing to shatter their consistent testimony.
DELAY IN LODING OF FIR.
46. No doubt, the incident of kidnapping of victim, confining her and subjecting her to penetrative sexual assault / rape and criminally intimidating her, took place on 30.12.2015 after 8 PM. As per prosecution case, the victim returned back after about an hour of leaving the house, and on the insistence of her sister, the victim, who was presumably in perplexed condition, narrated the entire incident to her sister. The mother and sister of the victim immediately went to the house of the accused that very night and also on the next day, to confront him regarding the incident, but he was not found in his house, and this assertion made by PW 2 and PW 3 has not been refuted on behalf of the accused during the crossexamination of both the said witnesses. It is when they realized that the accused was not to be found, that the complaint was made in the PS on 01.01.2016, leading to the further vigilant and thorough investigation by the Investigating Agency. The delay in lodging of the FIR has been explained justifiably by PW 2 and PW 3 i.e. mother and elder Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 27 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash sister of the victim, and there is nothing which has come on record to disbelieve their version.
47. It needs to be kept in mind that an incident of sexual assault upon a young girl, causes immense trauma not just to the victim but her entire family and fear of society and social stigmatization often puts them under a dilemma as to what should be done. The delay in the instant case having been cogently explained by the family members of the victim, is found to be believable and therefore the delay of more than one day in lodging the FIR, does not prove fatal to the instant case.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
48. The defence put on behalf of the accused is that he was innocent and he did not commit any penetrative sexual assault / rape upon the victim and that he has been falsely implicated in this case only at the instance of sister and mother of the victim, who had an objection to the friendly relations of the accused with the victim. The said friendly relations have been denied by the victim as well as both the other two material witnesses, and no independent evidence to prove this defence of the accused, was brought forth on behalf of the accused. Rather the allegations which came forth in the testimony of material witnesses are that the accused was keeping an evil eye on the victim, due to which they even shifted from their erstwhile house to another place, and the same has not been refuted by the accused during the crossexamination of the victim and her mother. Therefore, the defence of the accused is found to be of no consequence and it is does not inspire any confidence.
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 28 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
49. IO SI Seema (PW 16) proved the sequence of events i.e. receiving the call vide DD No. 16 A, reaching the house of the victim alongwith Ct. Ritu and Ct. Satya Prakash, victim alongwith her sister having been taken to BJRM Hospital for her medical examination, seizing of sealed exhibits of the victim vide seizure memo Ex. PW 14/A, recording of statement of the victim, rukka / Tehrir being prepared, registration of FIR, subsequently site plan having been prepared at the instance of the victim, which again remained irrefuted on behalf of the accused. Thereafter, at the instance of the victim, the accused was arrested, and was handed over in the custody of Ct. Uttam, who took him to BJRM Hospital, where medical examination of the accused was conducted vide MLC Ex. PW 9/A by PW 9 Dr. Avanish Tripathi, who collected the blood sample of the accused and handed over the same to concerned police official in sealed condition. Subsequently on 04.01.2016, the accused was taken to RML Hospital, where his potency test was conducted by PW 17 Dr. Manasa T vide MLC Ex. PW 7/A, wherein it has been opined that on self stimulation, patient was able to generate erection and there is nothing to suggest that patient is incapable of performing intercourse. His blood samples and other exhibits were taken and sent to FSL for expert opinion. The said assertions have not been disputed by the accused during the cross examination of the said witnesses, on behalf of the accused.
50. IO SI Seema (PW16) as well as Ct. Uttam (PW15) proved the Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 29 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash seizure memos of all the sealed samples of the accused as Ex. PW 15/D and PW 6 Ct. Anil Kumar proved the deposit of the said sealed exhibits alongwith sample seal in the FSL Rohini on 04.01.2016 itself vide Road Certificate Ex. PW 6/A, and the acknowledgement receipt issued by the FSL regarding receipt of the said samples was proved as Ex. PW 6/B. The FSL result Ex. F1 categorically states of having received all the sealed pullandas with seal intact from Ct. Anil Kumar on 04.01.2016, including parcel 5 containing Exhibit 5 i.e. dark brown gauze cloth piece (blood gauze of accused Ram Prakash), and the same has been proved, without any doubt. As per the FSL result Ex. F1, on analysis of the exhibits of the accused and that of the victim, blood was detected on the different exhibits of the victim including exhibits 2, 3a and 3b (clothes of the victim) and Ex. 5 dark brown gauze cloth piece (blood gauze of accused Ram Prakash). The FSL result further establishes that semen was detected on exhibits 2, 3a and 3b (clothes of the victim), and the same finds a mention that Alleles from the source of Exhibit 5 were accounted in alleles from the source of exhibits 2, 3a and 3b, and alleles from the source of Exhibit 1g (blood sample of victim in three vaccutainer tube) were accounted in alleles from the source of exhibits 1b, 1c1, 1c2 and ie, and it has been opined that DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on Exhibits is sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit 5 (blood gauze of accused) is matching with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 2, 3a and 3b (clothes of the victim).
51. Neither any report nor the documents prepared by the investigative agency, during the course of investigation, have been Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 30 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash disputed by the accused during the crossexamination of any of the witnesses. It is also not disputed that the exhibits collected in the instant case remained untampered with, throughout. Therefore, the unrebutted testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence brought forth in the form of seizure memos, Road Certificate, acknowledgement receipt, FSL result Ex. F1 which establishes the conclusion about presence of semen of accused on the clothes of the victim, which she was wearing at the time of commission of penetrative sexual assault / rape upon her and which were subsequently taken and sealed by the doctor concerned, go to the root of the matter and establish the chain of events beyond a shadow of doubt.
OFFENCE U/S 363 IPC
52. The accused has been charged for having kidnapped the victim out of the lawful guardianship of her parents. The term Kidnapping from lawful guardianship has been defined in section 361 IPC, which is being reproduced herein below :
Section 361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, our of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship".
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 31 of 36
SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash
53. The bare reading of the said provision of law makes it clear that if a minor is taken away or entices out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor, the accused is liable for punishment u/s 363 IPC. In the instant case, the testimony of the victim, which remained uncontroverted, is clear to the effect that while she was returning back home after taking medicines, she was taken by accused with him on the pretext of showing her, his room. Victim was less than 12 years of age at the relevant time and was in the symbolic guardianship of her parents, and this act of the accused, which has not been controverted by him, clearly brings home the guilt of the accused for the said offence of having kidnapped the victim on the fateful night of 30.12.2015.
OFFENCE U/S 342 IPC
54. The accused has been charged for wrongfully confining the victim and the term 'wrongful confinement' has been defined in section 340 IPC, which is being reproduced herein below :
"340. Wrongful confinement. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.
55. From the bare reading of the said provision of law, it is clear that for an offence to be brought within the ambit of section 340, an element of force being used upon the victim or her ways being obstructed, is essential to be proved and that the victim was restrained to leave a Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 32 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash particular place by the accused, which would thus establish the offence of wrongful confinement. In the case in hand, the victim who was the only witness who could have established the guilt of the accused in this case, was silent as regards any force being used upon her, or accused having either bolted the door or in other away having restrained the victim from moving towards any particular direction or leaving the room, at any point of time. In fact, after the victim was kidnapped / taken away by the accused to his room, penetrative sexual assault was committed upon her and thereafter the victim came back home. Therefore, this being the case, there being no overt act being done by the accused to confine the victim in any particular place or more specifically in his room, is sufficient to hold that offence of confinement as defined in section 340 IPC and punishable u/s 342 IPC is not brought home.
SECTION 506 (II) IPC.
56. The accused has been charged for having criminally intimidated the victim D with life, in case she disclosed about the incident to anybody with intent to cause alarm. The term "criminal intimidation' has been defined in section 503 IPC, which is being reproduced herein below :
503. Criminal intimidation. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 33 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash of avoiding the execution of such treat, commits criminal intimidation."
57. A bare reading of the said section 503 IPC is elucidatory in as much as that by the threat which is purportedly extended by the accused, causes an alarm to the victim, makes her terrified of doing an act, for the nondoing of which the threat had been extended by the accused. However, in the case in hand, immediately on returning back home, on the insistence of her sister, the victim narrated the entire incident to her sister and therefore the element of she being under any terror or intimidation caused due to any threat extended by the accused, is conspicuously missing. Therefore, from the testimony of the victim, it is not established that she was criminally intimidated with life by the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 506 (II) IPC.
OFFENCE U/S 6 POCSO ACT AND U/S 376 (2) (i) IPC.
58. As discussed above, the victim has categorically stated about the accused having subjected her to penetrative sexual assault / rape on 30.12.2015, after taking her to his room. Her testimony is duly supported and corroborated by her sister and her mother. The sexual intent behind doing such an act, is also established beyond doubt, by the uncontroverted testimony of PW 2 that accused was having an evil eye on the victim, earlier also. Soon after the incident, the victim returned back home, and as per the testimony of all the material witnesses, her Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 34 of 36 SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash clothes were blood stained, which were eventually sealed & seized and sent to FSL and the FSL result Ex. F1 has been duly proved on record, which establishes that semen of accused was detected on the clothes of the victim i.e. exhibits 2, 3a and 3b i.e. her sameez, her shirt and her pyjami respectively. Further the MLC of the victim Ex. PW 8/A was proved by PW 8 Dr. R.Kappu, who medically examined the victim and wherein it has been observed that hymen of victim was absent and Orifice was found to be 2 x 2 cm and bleeding per vagina was present, which are vital corroborative piece of evidence and endorse the testimony of the material witnesses that the victim had been subjected to penetrative sexual assault / rape.
59. In view of my discussion above, it emerges that :
(i) on the day of incident i.e. 30.12.2015, the victim was aged about 11 years and 11 months;
(ii) testimony of the material witnesses i.e. victim (PW1) and her mother (PW2) and her sister (PW3) is reliable and trustworthy,
(iii) The witnesses of investigation have corroborated the chain of events and investigation is prompt and thorough.
(iv) Delay of a little more than 1 day in making the complaint by the victim is well explained.
(v) on the date of incident the accused took the victim to his room on the pretext of showing her, his room.
(vi) that the accused after kidnapping and taking the victim to his room, subjected her to penetrative sexual assault / rape.
(vii) accused failed to establish his defence.
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 35 of 36
SC No. 58843/16 State Vs. Ram Prakash @ Avinash
60. Conclusion : In the light of my discussion above, the
testimony of prosecution witnesses is found to be trustworthy and reliable, and the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused had committed Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault / rape upon the victim, aged less than 12 years on the date of incident i.e. 30.12.2015, and therefore the accused is liable to be convicted for an offence of Kidnapping u/s 363 IPC and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault as described u/s 5 (m) of the POCSO Act, and punishable U/s 6 of POCSO Act and for the offence punishable u/s 376 (2)(i) IPC.
61. Accordingly, the accused Ram Prakash @ Avinash is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 363 IPC and u/s 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and u/s 376 (2)(i) IPC.
62. Matter be listed for arguments on the quantum of sentence on 15.03.2018.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. on 13.03.2018 (SEEMA MAINI)
ASJ01/SPECIAL JUDGE : POCSO Act :
North : Rohini/Delhi : 13.03.2018
Judgment : FIR No. 02/16 page 36 of 36