Delhi District Court
Sc No: 58469/16 State vs . Dipender on 30 March, 2017
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, NORTH
ROHINI, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 58469/14
FIR No. 259/14
Police Station S. P. Badli
Under Section 363 IPC & 6 POCSO
State
Versus
Dipender
S/o Sh. Ganga Bahadur
R/o 531, Suraj Park,
S.P. Badli, Delhi ......Accused
Date of institution 26.04.2014
Judgment reserved on 08.03.2017
Judgment Pronounced on 28.03.2017
Decision Convicted
Judgment Page 1 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial on allegations of kidnapping and committing penetrative sexual assault upon Victim "N" a girl aged between 11-12 years.
2. FIR in question was registered on the complaint of victim who alleged that on 14.03.2014 at about 7:30 PM when she was going to public toilet, accused met her on the way and caught hold her hand. Thereafter, he took her in a jhuggi, gagged her mouth and removed her jeans and committed wrong act with her. She got unconscious and when she gained consciousness, she found herself in a hospital with her parents. She prayed for legal action against the accused.
3. Accused was arrested & charge-sheeted. Charge for the offence punishable under Section U/s 363 IPC & Section 6 POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act was framed against accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Judgment Page 2 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
4. Prosecution examined 20 witnesses.
PW Name of witness Nature of witness Documents proved
1 Mukesh Kumar Record Clerk, Proved the date of birth of victim
MCD Office as 20.07.2002 vide documents
Ex. PW1/A & B.
2 Victim Victim Victim supported prosecution
version and proved her statement
given to police as Ex. PW2/A, her
statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.
P.C as Ex. PW2/B
3 N Mother of victim Supported prosecution version and
proved pointing out memo
prepared at the instance of
accused as Ex. PW3/A, seizure of
chaddar and a small piece of cloth
vide memo Ex. PW3/B and seizure
of sexual assault evidence kit of
victim as Ex. PW3/C.
4 Dr. Vidya Rani Doctor Proved medical examination of
victim vide MLC Ex. PW4/A.
5 HC Pawan Kumar Police Proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW5/A
and his endorsement on rukka as
Ex. PW5/B.
6 H Father of victim Supported prosecution version and
proved arrest & personal search of
accused vide memo Ex. PW6/A &
B.
7 Sita Occupier of place Deposed that on date of incident
of occurrence possession of her jhuggi was with
one Laxman.
8 Ct. Umesh Police Deposited case property with FSL
Judgment Page 3 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
9 Laxman Public Hostile : Denied that possession of
jhuggi (place of occurrence) was
with him on the date of incident.
10 Dr. Brijesh Narayan Doctor Examined accused vide MLC
Ex. PW10/A
11 Ct. Kalpana CPCR, PHQ Recorded information regarding
missing of victim and taking h er
to hospital after her revovery vide
PCR Form Ex. PW11/A & proved
certificate U/s 65(B) I.E. Act in
respect of correctness of
computerized record.
12 HC Ved Prakash Police Visited spot on receipt of DD No.
56A and got victim medically
examined, seized exhibits of
victim, arrested accused vide
memo Ex. PW6/A & B. Recorded
disclosure statement of accused
Ex. PW12/A and prepared pointing
out memo Ex. PW3/A.
13 HC Gordhan Lal MHC(M) Proved deposit of case property
with malkhana and FSL vide
documents Ex. PW13/A to C.
14 Ms. Rajni Ranga Ld MM Recorded statement of victim U/s
164 Cr.P.C. as Ex PW2/B.
15 Ins. Vipnesh Police Got recorded statement of victim
U/s 164 Cr.P.C. and submitted
FSL Result as Ex. F-1.
16 Dr Mukesh Doctor Examined accused and proved his
potency report as Ex PW16/A
17 Ct. Prashant Police Collected exhibits of accused after
his medical examination and
handed over to IO vide seizure
memo Ex PW17/A.
Judgment Page 4 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
18 SI Anita Sharma Police Seized exhibits of accused after
his medical examination as per
memo Ex PW17/A.
19 Naresh Kumar Scientific Officer, Proved FSL Result Ex. F-1 in
FSL respect of DNA Profiling
performed on exhibits of victim
and accused.
20 SI Neetu Investigating Recorded statement of victim and
Officer prepared rukka as Ex. PW20/A,
Prepared site plan Ex. PW20/B,
arrest of accused and seizure of
bed-sheet and small cloth from
place of occurrence. Proved bed-
sheet as case property Ex. P-1 and
piece of cloth as case property
Ex. P-2.
5. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused stated that mother of victim was asking Rs. 2 lacs from him to purchase a plot. When he and his family showed inability to pay the amount then mother of victim threatened him that she would implicate him in a false case. Accused claimed that on the date of incident, he came from his shop at about 11 PM and at that time beat officer came and apprehended him. In the police station, victim stated that he did not commit any wrong act with her. Judgment Page 5 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
6. In defence, accused examined 4 witnesses.
7. DW1 Dr. Bhim Singh after going through MLC of victim Ex. PW4/A deposed that no injury was noticed on the genital region or any other part of body of victim. He deposed that MLC of accused Ex. PW10/A also does not indicate any kind of sexual activity and testified that FSL Result Ex. F-1 seems to be copy paste and no proper method was followed. However, during course of his cross-examination he admitted that in his entire professional life only once or twice he has done DNA examination. He also admitted that he has not done any Gynae work and also that the hymen can be ruptured due to non-sexual activity.
8. DW-2 Sumitra deposed that she is friend of victim and on the date of incident she remained with victim till 10 pm. During her cross-examination, she deposed that on 15.03.2014, Judgment Page 6 of 29 SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender she became aware that her friend became complainant in present case and also that accused was arrested but neither she nor her mother visit police station to apprise the fact that victim was with her at the time of alleged incident.
9. DW3 Ramesh deposed that he runs a Momos Stall near stall of accused and on 14.03.2014, accused was present in the stall with him from 04:00 PM to 11:00 PM and on next day he came to know that accused was apprehended by police. During his cross-examination he deposed that he did not visit police station to apprise the fact that accused was with him till 11:00 PM.
10. DW4 Pappu Gupta deposed that he is not aware to whom mobile number 9654673547 belongs and testified that he never called at 100 nor police ever contacted him. He deposed that he never visited the place which is mentioned in PCR Form Ex.PW11/A nor the mobile number mentioned in the form belongs to him.
Judgment Page 7 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
11. Ld. Defence Counsel has filed written submissions and has argued that :
a) Contradictory statements of victim and her parents makes the testimony of victim untrustworthy and not reliable.
b) Recovery of victim from place of occurrence is doubtful.
c) Place of occurrence not proved.
d) Medical evidence does not indicate any sexual assault.
e) Place of arrest of accused is doubtful.
f) No photograph or crime scene report has been proved.
g) Manner in which FIR was registered is doubtful as the alleged caller who gave the information has not been examined and DW4 Pappu Gupta categorically deposed that he never called police nor gave information regarding any incident.
12. I have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the material on record.
Judgment Page 8 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
13. Age of victim: Before dwelling upon the incident of assault, let us find out what was the age of victim at the time of incident. Birth certificate of the victim issued by Registrar of Birth & Death, Rohini Zone, MCD has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/B and the relevant record in respect of birth of victim is proved as Ex. PW1/A as per which the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 20.07.2002. This goes to show that on the date of incident (14.03.2014), victim was about 11 years 7 months old. Defence has not disputed the age of victim. Thus, it is held that victim was a "Child" within the meaning given under POCSO Act on the date of incident.
14. Testimony of victim & other material witnesses:
Main contention of the defence is that victim has deposed under influence of her parents and no such incident happened. It is submitted that there are material contradictions in testimony of prosecution witnesses. Let us examine testimony of prosecution witnesses in the light of the contentions raised by the defence.Judgment Page 9 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
15. Victim's Version: FIR in question was registered on the complaint of victim as Ex. PW2/A. English translation of her statement reads as under :-
".....Yesterday on 14.03.2014, at about 07:30 pm, I went out of my house to toilet. After going at some distance, Dipender whom I knew earlier caught hold of my hand and took me in a jhuggi and then he gagged my mouth from his hand and removed my jeans. Then he committed wrong act with me. Thereafter I got scared and became unconscious. When I gained consciousness, I was with my parents in the hospital. Dipender has forcibly committed wrong act with me."
16. Statement of victim was also recorded by Ld. MM U/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW2/B. English translation of her statement reads as under :-
"In the evening of 14 March at about 07:30 pm, I went out of my jhuggi for toilet. On the way, Dipender caught hold of my hand. He forcibly took me to a house. That house was near to our jhuggi. He bolted the door from inside. He forcibly took off my pant. When I asked him as to what he was doing, he didn't say anything. He starting forcing me. He also took off his pant. When I raised alarm, he gagged my mouth by his hand. He committed wrong act with me. I pushed him and started opening the door. He restrained me Judgment Page 10 of 29 SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender from opening the door and he again committed wrong act with me. He has committed wrong act with me twice. Then he left from there.
Tell me more.
Then he climbed up and went outside the house. He didn't open the door from inside. I got unconscious. When I gained consciousness, I was in the hospital. What else?
Dipender resides near our jhuggi and sells momos. What else?
I had seen Dipender earlier. He used to play with my brother and used to give him goodies.
Do you want to say anything else?
No."
17. In her testimony recorded in the Court victim has deposed as under:
"At the time of incident, I was studying in sixth class and my examinations were going on. On 14.03.2014, at about 7:30pm, I was going for Sauchalaya, which is situated at a little distance from the park, situated in the vicinity of my house. At the turn, Dipender held my hand and took me to the jhuggi of some person. Thereafter, he closed the door of the said jhuggi. He had also closed the light of the jhuggi and then committed rape with me. By rape I mean, he took out his cloths and he also took out my cloths and inserted his urinating part in my urinating part. Thereafter, I became unconscious in the jhuggi and when I regained my consciousness, I found myself in the hospital with my parents. Accused Dipender was residing near to my jhuggi.Judgment Page 11 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender At the time of rape when I tried to raise alarm, accused Dipender gagged my mouth. My father had informed to the police and police came at the hospital and my statement is recorded, same is Ex.PW2/A, which bears my signature at point A. Police also got conducted my medical examination at BSA Hospital after taking permission from my parents.....
The concerned doctor had seized my cloths i.e. my jeans pant and my vest (top inner wear), which I was wearing on the day of incident, after my medical examination...Dipender used to sale Momos. My brother used to visit the house of the uncle of Dipender and I used to call him as Mama (maternal uncle). I also sometimes used to the house of uncle of Dipender. My date of birth is 20.07.2002..."
18. Victim was cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and during her cross examination victim deposed that she cannot say whether any person saw accused taking her in the jhuggi. Victim admitted that she did not raise any alarm but at the same time testified that she did not succeed in raising alarm. Victim testified that police did not take her in the jhuggi where incident occurred but deposed that the said jhuggi belonged to Sita. Judgment Page 12 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
19. Victim aged about 11 years described the entire incident which happened with her. Her deposition in the Court is no different then the statements given by her to the police as well as to Ld. MM. Victim also described the incident to Doctor as mentioned in her MLC Ex. PW4/A. Testimony of the victim, with relation to the incident is reassuring as she has been consistent throughout in describing what the accused did to her and also about the place of incident. Material facts deposed by victim in her examination-in-chief remained unchallenged in her cross- examination. No ulterior motive was attributed to her for falsely deposing against the accused.
20. PW3 & 6, parents of victim substantially corroborated the incident and reporting it the police. They deposed that when victim did not return from Sauchalaya, they searched her but victim was not found. At about 11:30 PM, they saw accused standing outside a jhuggi and on seeing them, accused ran from there. Thereafter, they went to that jhuggi which was found Judgment Page 13 of 29 SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender bolted from inside and after opening the door of jhuggi, they noticed that victim was lying unconscious on the floor of jhuggi. Matter was reported to police and victim was taken to BSA Hospital in a PCR Van. They testified that when victim regained her senses she informed them that accused sexually assaulted her after taking her inside the jhuggi. PW3 (mother of victim) testified that the police seized one bed sheet and small piece of cloth from the place of occurrence as per seizure memo Ex. PW3/B and also seized clothes of her daughter vide memo Ex. PW3/C.
21. Chain of events as unfurled in matter finds corroboration from the testimony of above noted witnesses. Parents of victim in unison have deposed that they saw victim lying in a jhuggi in unconscious state and victim was immediately taken to hospital. When victim regained consciousness, she told them that accused committed rape on her. Parents of victim were cross-examined at length but both remained consistent in respect of material particulars of the case.
Judgment Page 14 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
22. After appreciating the depositions of victim and her parents it can be safely concluded that their version is consistent with the prosecution case in relation to the incident and no material has been brought forward by the defense to dent their truthfulness.
23. Place of occurrence: It has been argued on behalf of accused that prosecution has not been able to prove place of occurrence of the alleged incident. In this regard, defense has pointed out that PW7 Sita to whom jhuggi no. A-577, JJ Camp, Suraj Park, SP Badli (place of occurrence) belongs deposed that possession of her jhuggi on the date of incident was with one Laxman (PW9) and not with accused. It is submitted that PW9 Laxman in his deposition denied that he was having possession of said jhuggi and rather deposed that on date of incident accused was selling Momos from 4 PM to 11 PM and he saw that accused was surrounded by public persons and parents of victim who were asking Rs. 2 lac from accused. It is submitted that in light of Judgment Page 15 of 29 SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender testimony of PW7 & 9 it becomes evident that accused was not present at place of occurrence nor he was having the possession of said jhuggi.
24. True that both PW7 & 9 have not supported case of prosecution and were declared hostile but at the same time PW7 Sita testified that on 10.03.2014 she went to her native village in Nepal along with her family members and came back on 19.03.2014 and after coming back she collected keys of her jhuggi from police officials. From her testimony it can be safely concluded that her jhuggi was taken into possession by the police officials in her absence. Being not available in India at time of incident surely she was not in position to depose as to what had happened in her jhuggi in her absence. As such her hostility to the case of prosecution does not effect case of prosecution. Judgment Page 16 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
25. Similarly, PW9 Laxman does not say that said jhuggi was under his possession. Had Laxman deposed that he was having possession of jhuggi and no incident occurred there, the case could have been different but it is not so. Victim and her parents all deposed that place of occurrence was jhuggi where Sita was residing. Parents of victim found victim lying there in unconscious condition. Therefore, testimony of PW9 who does not claim his presence and possession of the said jhuggi on date of incident does not dent the version of victim and her parents in respect of place of occurrence.
26. Information to police: It has been submitted on behalf of the accused that the name of the caller who informed the police regarding missing of the victim from her house is appearing on PCR Form Ex. PW11/A as Pappu Gupta but the said Pappu Gupta who has been examined by the defence as DW-4 deposed that he never informed the police in respect of missing of any child nor he has visited the place of occurrence at any point of Judgment Page 17 of 29 SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender time. On the basis of the aforesaid deposition of DW-4 Pappu Gupta, it has been argued that the very basis of the present case about the information to the police has not been proved by the prosecution which completely demolishes the case of prosecution.
27. True that DW-4 Pappu Gupta testified that he did not inform the police nor he made any call at 100 as mentioned in Ex. PW11/A but it has come in the deposition of PW-3(mother of victim) that when she found victim lying unconscious on the floor of jhuggi, a member of NGO namely Pratibha also reached there and she reported the matter to the police at 100. Similar is the deposition of father of the victim as well. Therefore, it is not the case of prosecution that the call was made by Pappu Gupta to the police rather the testimony of parents of victim clarifies that the call was made by NGO official Pratibha. Thus, the testimony of DW-4 does not effect the case of prosecution in any manner. Judgment Page 18 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
28. It is also to be considered that the Form Ex. PW11/A mention that the information was also received from PCR Van that victim was found in unconscious condition and she was being taken to hospital along with her parents. Therefore, the arguments in respect of the non-reporting of the incident is wholly misconceived and is sans merit.
29. Medical & Forensic Evidence: It has been contended on behalf of defence that medical evidence does not indicate sexual assault on victim as no external injury was found on victim. Defense has submitted that in Atender Yadav Vs State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 (4) JCC 2962, Hon'ble High Court has held that in small children hymen is not usually ruptured but may become red & congested with the inflammation and bruising of labia. Similarly, in present case no indication is seen on victim. To support this contention defense has also relied upon case titled as Judgment Page 19 of 29 SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender State Vs Brij Dev Tiwari @ Pandit, Crl A. 314/2015 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 08.12.2015 wherein the Hon'ble High Court upheld the acquittal of accused for want of medical evidence.
30. Medical examination of victim is proved on record vide MLCs as Ex. PW4/A wherein following observations are made:
1. No injury in Labia Majora and Minora.
2. Hymen not intact
3. No bleeding
31. In the light of the aforesaid observations on the MLC, Ld. Counsel for accused has vehemently argued that medical evidence establishes that the victim was not sexually assaulted and thus, in light of the medical evidence on record, testimony of victim can not be relied to hold accused guilty of commission of sexual assault.
Judgment Page 20 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
32. True that no sign of external injury was noticed on the person of victim but it has to be kept in mind that the medical evidence can at best be taken as corroborative piece of evidence and nothing more. In this context, it would be appropriate to reproduce the opinion expressed by Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology(Twenty-first Edition) at page 369 which read thus:
"Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetrative of the penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a case the medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is a crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one."Judgment Page 21 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
33. In Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the following passage is found:
"Sexual intercourse. - In law, this term is held to mean the slightest degree of penetration of the vulva by the penis with or without emission of semen. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains."
34. In present case, victim in all her statements has time and again reiterated that accused took her in a jhuggi and after closing door of jhuggi, committed penetrative sexual assault by inserting his urinating part in her urinating part. True that extent of penetration cannot be judged from medical examination of victim but testimony of victim does indicate towards penetrative sexual assault on her. As far as, FSL result Ex. F-1 is concerned, it finds DNA Profile of accused is matching with breast swab, vaginal secretion, washing of vagina and jeans pant of victim. DNA of accused is also found on bed-sheet and cloth piece seized from place of occurrence.
Judgment Page 22 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
35. It is submitted that the FSL Result is manipulated and therefore accused cannot be held guilty. It is argued that relevant & important material is not proved and in light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Batham Vs. State of MP, AIR 2002 SC 3206 the forensic evidence cannot be relied upon. Ld Defense Counsel has also relied upon case titled as Abdul Gaffar Vs State 1996 JCC 497 to argue that seizure of exhibits of accused in absence of handing over seal to independent witness is doubtful.
36. PW17 Ct Prashant collected exhibits of accused after his medical examination which was seized from him by IO vide memo Ex PW17/A. PW-20 SI Neetu deposed that she collected exhibits of victim after her medical examination memo Ex PW3/C. PW4 Dr Vidya Rani deposed that she collected samples of victim and handed over the same to IO. PW13 HC Gordhan Lal proved deposit of exhibits with Malkhana and also sending it to FSL.
Judgment Page 23 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
37. None of the above noted witnesses were attributed any motive to depose falsely or manipulating the samples in any manner. Exhibits/samples of victim & accused were handed over by the concerned Doctor to police official in sealed condition. Seizure memo Ex PW3/C mentions that samples were handed over with seal of Dr. BSAH 01.07.12 Govt of Delhi. Sample seal was also handed over to IO. Thus, it is not a case where IO collected the samples and sealed it with her own seal. In these facts handing over the seal to any independent witness by the concerned Doctor does not arise. Hence, the judgments cited by ld Defense Counsel has no application in respect of seizure of exhibits/samples of victim & accused after their medical examination in concerned.
38. Bed-sheet (Ex P-1) & a piece of cloth (Ex P-2) seized from place of occurrence vide seizure memo Ex PW3/B was sealed with seal of VP. FSL Report as Ex F-1 finds both things in sealed condition. Bed-sheet (Ex P-1) & a piece of cloth (Ex P-2) as per Ex F-1 finds DNA isolated from blood of accused on Judgment Page 24 of 29 SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender Ex P-1 & P-2 as well. There is nothing on record to suggest that both these materials were manipulated or DNA of accused was planted on it. None of the above noted witnesses were attributed any motive to depose falsely or manipulating the samples in any manner.
39. As far as testimony of DW-1 Dr. Bhim Singh in respect of the FSL report is concerned, it is evident that though DW-1 testified that the FSL result seemed to be copied paste and no proper method seemed to have been followed in arriving at the result but DW-1 himself admitted that he does not have any expertise in DNA examination and throughout his professional life, he has conducted DNA examination only once or twice.
40. On the other hand, prosecution examined PW-19 Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL who explained the process of preserving the samples and given details as to from which source DNA of accused was extracted. FSL report given by Judgment Page 25 of 29 SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender PW-19 Naresh Kumar as stated above indicates that the DNA profile generated from blood of accused matched with breast swab, vaginal secretion, washing of vagina and jeans pant of victim. DNA of accused is also found on bed-sheet sheet and cloth piece seized from the place of occurrence.
41. Thus, ocular evidence of the victim if not finds support from the medical evidence but the forensic evidence lends support to the version of the victim and establishes that accused committed sexual penetrative assault on victim.
42. Defence of accused: Accused has taken a defence that mother of victim was asking Rs. 2 lacs from him to purchase a plot. When he and his family showed inability to pay the amount then mother of victim threatened him that she would implicate him in a false case. Accused claimed that on the date of incident, he came from his shop at about 11 PM and at that time beat officer came and apprehended him.
Judgment Page 26 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
43. Accused did not lead any evidence to prove his defence that there was any kind of monetary transaction between accused and mother of victim. Although, DW-2 a friend of victim was examined by the defence who testified that victim was with her till 10:00 PM but the testimony of DW-2 stands falsified by the DD No. 56A through which it was informed to the PS that victim was missing since 6:00 PM. This information stands also recorded in the PCR Form Ex. PW11/A.
44. DW-3 Ramesh who along with accused runs a momos stall near dispensary testified that accused was present in the stall with him from 4 PM to 11 PM. He deposed that on the next day, he came to know that accused was apprehended by the police in a false case. Testimony of DW-3 goes to show that despite his claim that accused was with him till 11:00 PM, he did not approach any police authority to say so.
Judgment Page 27 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
45. It is evident that except for a stray question, there is no positive evidence on record led by the accused to prove any kind of monetary dispute and the same being basis of his false implication in the matter. It is noteworthy that the burden of proving his defence upon the accused under POCSO Act is very heavy and he has not been able to discharge the said burden. Therefore, the accused has miserably failed in proving his defence to dent the case of prosecution. Hence, the accused has not been able to raise any substantial defence to dent the case of prosecution.
46. Conclusion: From discussions, it emerges that:
i) Prosecution has been able to establish that on the date of incident victim was a "child" less than 12 years old.
ii) Accused after taking victim in a jhuggi, committed penetrative sexual assault on her in that jhuggi.
iii) Testimony of victim is found to be truthful and consistent in material particulars.
iv) Parents of victim corroborated version of victim.
v) Incident was promptly reported to police.Judgment Page 28 of 29
SC No: 58469/16 State Vs. Dipender
vi) Forensic evidence establishes penetrative sexual assault.
vii) Accused failed to establish any defence.
47. In the light of aforesaid discussions, accused stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and U/s 6 POCSO Act.
Matter be listed for hearing arguments on quantum of sentence for 30.03.2017.
(GAUTAM MANAN) ASJ-01:NORTH:ROHINI:DELHI 28.03.2017.
Judgment Page 29 of 29