Delhi District Court
State vs . Parveen Kumar on 20 August, 2014
State Vs. Parveen Kumar
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. 97/13
ID No. : 02401R0244562013
FIR No. : 78/13
Police Station : I. P. Estate
Under Section : 354A IPC & 8 POCSO Act
State
Versus
Parveen Kumar
S/o Laxmi Narayan
R/o B-96, DDA Flats,
Mata Sundari Road,
New Delhi.
.........Accused
Date of Institution : 14.05.2013
Date of judgment reserved : 11.08.2014
Date of judgment : 20.08.2014
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh. Nitin Mittal, Advocate, counsel for the accused
JUDGMENT :-
1. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on April 25, SC No. 97/13 1 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar 2013, father of complainant produced the accused Parveen Kumar at PP JPN hospital stating that accused had misbehaved with his daughter. Since accused was beaten by public, he was sent to hospital for medical examination through constable Het Ram while investigating officer SI Khalid Akhtar along with lady constable Preeti and HC Ajit left for the house of complainant along with her father.
(i) It was alleged that complainant got recorded her statement Ex.
PW2/B (since the complainant is a child victim of sexual assault, her identity is withheld and hereinafter she is referred to as complainant or victim. In order to conceal the identity of victim, identity of her father is also withheld and he is referred to as father of complainant). Complainant in her statement Ex. PW2/B alleged that she studied in 6 th standard. About four months prior to April 25, 2013, when she was riding cycle near her house, all of sudden one boy i.e. accused came in front of her cycle and made an attempt to kiss her after holding her and he also tried to gagged her mouth. But she had given teeth biting and got rid of herself and ran away after raising alarm, consequently, accused fled away.
(ii) It was alleged that on April 19, 2013 in the evening accused again came in the colony and stopped her cycle and made an attempt to talk with her but she raised an alarm as he was trying to do previous acts. It was alleged that accused ran away when she raised alarm.
(iii) It was alleged that on April 25, 2013 at about between 4 PM to 5 PM when she was playing outside her house, accused came again and caught hold her forcibly and kissed her on her cheeks. Consequently, she raised an alarm. After hearing hue and cry, her parents and public persons came there and they apprehended the accused. She told her parents that SC No. 97/13 2 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar accused was harassing her for the last four months. Accordingly, father of the complainant took the accused to the police chowki.
2. During investigation, statement of victim was got recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. Documents relating to her age were collected form her parents as well as from her school. Accused was arrested and an FIR was got registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 354A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) read with Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act (in short POCSO Act).
3. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 354A IPC read with Section 8 of POCSO Act.
4. Vide order dated July 17, 2013, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 354A IPC read with Section 10 of POCSO Act was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined as many as following six witnesses:-
PW1 HC Parmod, duty officer, proved the FIR
PW2 Complainant/victim
PW3 Father of the complainant
PW4 Mohd. Fahim Rehman, an independent witness
PW5 HC Ajit Singh, member of investigating team
PW6 SI Khalid Akhtar, investigating officer
SC No. 97/13 3 of 18
State Vs. Parveen Kumar
6. On culmination of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he denied each and every incriminating evidence led by the prosecution and submitted that he had been falsely implicated in this case. It was stated that he was a student of 12th standard at the time of alleged incident and he was going to school to take result as he was studying in Govt. Sr. Secondary school, Kali Mandir, Mata Sundri Road. On the way, he was apprehended by public persons and he was beaten mercilessly. He further submitted that he never met with the victim. He further stated that he also visited the school on April 22, 2014 and met with his teacher Mr. Ranvijay Yadav who used to teach him history. He told him that result would come after 2-3 days. Accordingly, he was going to school to know the result on the day of alleged incident. Though accused submitted that he would lead evidence in his defence but he failed to lead any evidence in his defence.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused vehemently contended that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and during trial prosecution has failed to furnish any reasonable explanation for delay in registration of FIR. He further submitted that PW6 had not followed the cardinal principles of investigation and failed to record departure and arrival entry in the register without any just and reasonable explanation. It was thus, argued that the prosecution case needs minute scrutiny. It was vigorously argued that PW4 is a planted witness as it has been established during trial that he was not in the position either to see the incident or to hear hue and cry. It was further contended that he was cited as a witness as he knew the father of the victim. It was sagaciously contended that PW3 is not an eyewitness, hence his testimony is not relevant to prove the culpability of the accused. It was further contended that though the mother of victim could be a relevant witness, but investigating officer did not deem SC No. 97/13 4 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar it appropriate even to record her statement. On the contrary, he deposed that mother of the victim did not apprehend the accused which is contrary to the claim of the complainant's version. It was further contended that the prosecution case is totally relied upon the testimony of victim. But no reliance can be placed on her testimony as she has made several improvements in her deposition. It was astutely contended that being a child witness no reliance can be placed on her testimony in the absence of any corroboration from any corner. It was further contended that accused had been falsely implicated in this case because he was beaten mercilessly by the parents of the victim and in order to save them from legal action, PW3 framed the accused with the connivance of local police.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the said contentions by arguing that there is no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and if there is any delay in registration of the FIR, same is not fatal to the prosecution case and further submitted that the testimony of victim cannot be discarded on the mere ground of delay. It was further contended that PW4 is an independent witness as he reached the spot after hearing the alarm raised by victim, hence his testimony cannot be discarded. It was further submitted that the testimony of complainant cannot be discarded mere on the ground that she is the child witness. It was further contended that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, onus is upon the accused to establish that he had not committed the offence, but during trial accused failed to adduce any evidence to discharge the onus, thus accused is liable to be held guilty for the charges.
9. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. It is pertinent to state that counsel for SC No. 97/13 5 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar both the parties failed to cite any case law in support of their contentions.
10. First question emerges to whether there is any delay in lodging the FIR, if yes, whether there is any reasonable explanation for the said delay or not.
11. In this regard, the testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW6 are relevant.
12. PW2 in her cross-examination clarified that the alleged incident had taken place on April 25, 2013 between 4 PM to 5 PM. PW3 in his examination-in-chief deposed that he had received a call from his wife between 4.30 PM to 5 PM. He further deposed that he reached the police chowki along with accused by 6.15 PM. Since, PW3 had received the call between 4:30 PM to 5 PM, thus, it can safely be culled out that the alleged incident had taken place approximately between 4 PM to 4:30 PM. PW6 in his cross-examination deposed that neither victim nor her mother told him about the exact time of incident despite his asking. It means that PW6 made an enquiry about the exact time of incident but victim as well as her mother failed to tell the same to the police even on the day of incident. But from the testimony of PW2 and PW3 it is manifested that the alleged incident had taken place between 4 PM to 4:30 PM. PW6 further deposed that he reached the police post JPN hospital between 5.30 PM to 6 PM and at that time PW3 along with accused was present in the police post. It means that PW3 had reached the police post prior to 5.30 PM to 6 PM. It is admitted case of prosecution that the FIR was registered at 9.55 PM. If the incident had taken place at between 4 PM to 4:30 PM, it means that there is a delay of more than 5 hours in registration of the FIR. During cross-examination when a question was put about the reason for said SC No. 97/13 6 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar delay, PW6 deposed that SHO told him first to visit the spot to make enquiry from the victim and then lodged the FIR. However, he candidly admitted that he had not mentioned this fact anywhere in the rukka that he was directed by SHO to visit the spot to make enquiry before lodging the FIR. In the absence of any cogent evidence on record, the explanation furnished by PW6 for the delay in registration of the FIR does not appear convincing.
(i) PW6 in his cross-examination further admitted that when PW3 brought the accused to police post, DD writer had not made any entry in the register to this effect. Similarly, he also admitted that he had also not recorded any departure or arrival entry in the register while leaving for the house of victim for investigation or when returned to the police post after investigation. Needless to say that it was the paramount duty of the DD writer to make an entry in the register when PW3 brought the accused to the police post with the allegation that accused had misbehaved with his daughter. Similarly, it was also the duty of PW6 to make departure and arrival entry in the register but they failed to do so without any reasonable explanation.
(ii) PW6 further admitted in his cross-examination that he knew that the sexual assault is a cognizable offence and further admitted that father of the victim had told him that accused had sexually assaulted his daughter. He also deposed that despite that he did not record the FIR on the statement of father of the victim by swiftly adding that since he had to verify the facts from the victim, thus he had not recorded the FIR at that time. Needless to say that in terms of Section 154 Cr. P.C, it was the paramount duty of police officer to register an FIR on receipt of the information about the commission of a cognizable offence. Since, PW3 had SC No. 97/13 7 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar furnished the information of commission of a cognizable offence, it was the duty of PW6 to register the FIR or at least to make an entry in the roznamcha register but he failed to do so without any reasonable explanation.
(iii) Thus, it becomes crystal clear that prosecution has failed to furnish any reasonable explanation for the delay in registration of FIR. Since the FIR has been registered after the delay of more than five hours, it means that same has been registered after due deliberation and consultation. Thus, in my opinion the case of prosecution requires minute scrutiny to ensure as to whether accused had been falsely implicated in this case or not.
13. Now coming to the contention relating to the testimony of PW4.
14. As per prosecution version, PW4 reached the spot after hearing scream of the victim and found that victim was weeping and accused was apprehended by public persons. PW4 in his cross- examination admitted that he knew the complainant party previously. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that at the time of alleged incident he was present at his garage which is located below Ranjeet Singh Fly Over near Railway colony. In his cross-examination he admitted that his shop is located at the distance of about 50-70 metres from the place of incident but swiftly added that the place of incident was visible from his garage. However, the testimony of PW4 is demolished by PW6 SI Khalid Akhtar in his cross-examination by categorically deposing that it was not feasible for PW4 to witness the incident from his shop as his shop was located at a substantial distance from the place of incident and the shop was not visible SC No. 97/13 8 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar from the place of incident. Thus, the testimony of PW4 that he could see the place of occurrence from his shop does not inspire any confidence. PW6 also admitted that he had not shown the shop of PW4 in the site plan. In these circumstances, Court has no opportunity to assess whether the incident could be witnessed from the shop of PW4 or not. Since investigating officer himself admitted that place of incident was not visible from his shop, thus Court has no reason to disbelieve him. PW4 in his cross-examination candidly admitted that he knew the complainant party, thus the possibility that he agreed to become a witness due to his acquaintance with complainant party cannot be ruled out. It is admitted case of the prosecution that victim was just 11 years old at the time of alleged incident, it is quite unbelievable that PW4 could hear the scream of a child from the distance of about 50-70 metres. Further, PW4 deposed that he had heard the scream of bacho-bacho whereas PW2 deposed that she raised the alarm bacho-bacho and chor do-chor do. Further, from the testimony of PW4 it is clear that he had not witnessed the incident; rather incident was witnessed by some other public persons who had already apprehended the accused. But surprisingly investigating officer failed to interrogate the persons who allegedly apprehended the accused. PW4 in his cross-examination categorically deposed that when he reached the spot, accused was already apprehended by 8-10 public persons. It means that the incident if any had taken place was witnessed by those 8-10 public persons and not by PW4. But surprisingly, PW6 failed to interrogate them. It is also pertinent to state that said 8-10 public persons were not strangers as PW3 in his cross-examination deposed that he knew the said 8-10 public persons by name and by face. Besides that he also knew some persons by face only. Since PW3 knew the said persons by name and face, PW6 could easily interrogate them but surprisingly no such effort was made to join them in the investigation. This shows that the investigating officer did SC No. 97/13 9 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar not make sincere efforts to examine any independent witness despite their availability. As it has been established that PW4 was neither in a position to see the place of incident nor to hear the scream of victim, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW4.
15. Now coming the contentions relating to the presence of mother of the victim at the spot.
16. Prosecution through the statement of complainant Ex. PW2/B has set up a case against the accused that on April 25, 2013 at the time of incident when complainant raised an alarm, her parents and other persons from nearby gathered there and they apprehended the accused. In her statement got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, complainant alleged that when she raised alarm, public persons came there and they apprehended the accused and she had also caught hold him by shirt and her mother also came there. Thus, as per prosecution version when victim raised the alarm, her parents reached there besides the public persons and they apprehended the accused. In her deposition, victim reiterated her version by deposing that when accused kissed her forcibly she raised an alarm, consequently, her mother along with others came there and they apprehended the accused. In her cross examination, she clarified that when she raised the alarm, her mother was talking with an aunty outside her house. She further clarified that though her mother was not visible from the place of incident but her quarter/house was very much visible from the spot. She further deposed that she raised the alarm bacho-bacho and chor do-chor do. Thus. Thus, according to the testimony of PW2, her mother along with other persons came there after hearing the alarm of victim and thereafter they apprehended the accused. But her version is not supported by the investigating officer (PW6).
SC No. 97/13 10 of 18
State Vs. Parveen Kumar
17. PW6 in his cross-examination categorically deposed that during investigation it was not revealed that mother of victim also reached the spot after hearing hue and cry or that she had apprehended the accused. He further deposed that rather during investigation, it was revealed that accused was apprehended by public persons and mother of victim reached the spot later on. Even PW4 in his examination-in-chief deposed that when he reached the spot victim had left for her house in his presence and after some time she came at the spot along with her mother. Thus, the testimony of PW2 to the extent that her mother came there after hearing alarm raised by her does not inspire any confidence. Though PW2 in her statement Ex. PW2/B claimed that her parents i.e. mother and father reached there after hearing the alarm raised by her but PW3 did not support her version as he categorically deposed that he reached the spot after the incident on receiving a call from his house. He further deposed that he reached the house between 5.30 PM to 5.40 PM. Thus, the testimony of PW2 to the extent that her father also reached there after hearing the alarm raised by her also does not inspire any confidence. Thus, it becomes clear that accused was not apprehended either by the mother of victim or by her parents as she claimed in her statement Ex. PW2/B, thus question arises who had apprehended the accused. Though prosecution has tried to establish that accused was apprehended by PW4 but PW4 in his testimony clarified that when he reached the spot, accused had already been apprehended by other public persons but no effort was made to join any of such person during the investigation.
18. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that mother of the victim was not present at the spot and she did not reach the spot after hearing the alarm allegedly raised by victim. Thus, the testimony of PW2 to that extent does not inspire any confidence. Assuming for the same of SC No. 97/13 11 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar arguments that mother of the victim had reached the spot after hearing the alarm allegedly raised by victim, question arises why the investigating officer had not recorded her statement. Had she been reached the spot after hearing alarm raised by victim or she had apprehended the accused, investigating officer would have certainly recorded her statement but it is not so and PW6 in his deposition clarified that during the investigation it was not revealed that the mother of victim either reached the spot after hearing the alarm raised by the victim or she had apprehended the accused. In these circumstances, the prosecution version to the extent that victim had raised alarm and after hearing the said alarm mother or father of the victim came there does not inspire any confidence.
19. Now question arises where was victim riding the cycle?
20. Victim in her cross-examination clarified that front side of the colony is an isolated place whereas in the back side of colony, public persons used to be present. She further deposed that at the time of first two incidents, she was riding the cycle in front portion of the colony whereas on April 25, 2013 she was riding the cycle in the back portion of the colony. It is admitted case of prosecution that accused was not residing in the colony of victim, he was residing in the separate colony. Thus, accused had no occasion to know at point of time victim would go to ply the cycle. Is it a co- incidence that on all the three occasions accused met with the victim while she was riding the bicycle or something else. If there is any substance in the deposition of PW2, accused should have waited for the victim in the front side of the colony on April 25, 2013 also because on earlier two occasions he met with victim in front side of the colony only. But it was not so as victim categorically deposed that on April 25, 2013 she was riding the cycle in the back portion of the colony and not in the front portion.
SC No. 97/13 12 of 18
State Vs. Parveen Kumar
21. Further, there is a contradiction between the testimony of PW2 and her statement Ex. PW2/B on the point of riding of the cycle also.
22. In her deposition, PW2 deposed that on April 25, 2013 she was riding the cycle in the back portion of the colony where public persons used to be present whereas in her statement Ex. PW2/B she alleged that at the time of incident she was playing outside her house. Even in her statement Ex. PW2/B she did not state that she was riding the cycle on April 25, 2013. It is pertinent to state that in her statement Ex. PW2/B she categorically stated that on earlier two occasions i.e. January 2013 and on April 19, 2013 she was riding the cycle. Thus, it is not clear whether she was playing outside her house as alleged in her statement Ex. PW2/B or she was riding the cycle behind her colony as deposed in the Court. The said contradiction cannot be brushed aside by saying as minor in nature because it affects the core of prostitution case as prosecution has set up a case that accused had sexually assaulted the victim when she was playing outside her house whereas in her deposition she categorically deposed that on that day she was plying cycle behind her colony, it means that she was not playing outside her house as alleged in her statement Ex. PW2/B.
23. There are some other contradictions in the testimony of complainant.
24. Prosecution has set up a case against the accused through the complaint Ex. PW2/B that accused had also sexually assaulted the victim at two earlier occasions i.e. in the month of January 2013 or April 19, 2013. PW2 in her examination-in-chief deposed that she did not make any complaint to her mother about the incident of January 2013 as accused had given a threat to her that if she had disclosed the incident to anyone, he SC No. 97/13 13 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar would kill her. In other words, she had taken the excuse that due to the said threat she had not made any complaint to her family members but the said important fact is missing from her complaint Ex. PW2/B which she initially made to the police. Even this fact is also not mentioned in her subsequent statement made under Section 164 Cr. P.C (Ex. PW2/A). This shows that PW2 has made substantial improvement in her testimony to justify her conduct.
25. Similarly, PW2 in her deposition inserted new allegations against the accused first time by deposing that on April 19, 2013 accused had pressed her breast and also kissed on her lips. But these allegations were not levelled in her initial complaint Ex. PW2/B. No doubt in her subsequent statement Ex. PW2/A victim had alleged that accused had pressed her chest but in the said statement she did not allege that accused had also kissed on her lips. It is pertinent to state that there is an inordinate unexplained delay in registration of FIR, thus the said discrepancies cannot be ignored by putting a level of minor discrepancy. Since, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, prosecution case is required close scrutiny to ensure whether the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy or not.
26. PW2 in her examination-in-chief deposed that in January 2013 she rushed to her house after the incident after leaving her bicycle at the spot. In her cross-examination she deposed that she brought the cycle later on when went to tuition. She further deposed that she was used to take tuition in January 2013 and clarified that the incident had taken place in January 2013 between 4.15 PM to 4.20 PM. She further deposed that when she rushed to home after the incident, none was at home. However, she clarified that her mother met her prior to going to tuition. It means that SC No. 97/13 14 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar when victim rushed to home her mother was not at whom but she came later on i.e prior to her going to tuition. She further clarified that when her mother came to home, she did not make any enquiry about the cycle because she had already brought the cycle. But earlier she deposed that she brought the cycle while going to tuition. Thus, PW2 made an inconsistent statement initially by deposing that she brought the cycle while she was going to the tuition but later on deposed that she brought the cycle prior to going to tuition. This shows that PW2 is a quite clever and not gullible as she should have been. Assuming if there was any threat to the witness as deposed by PW2, then it is highly improbable that victim could dare to go alone to bring the cycle back. It further appears quite improbable that she would go tuition alone on that day without having any expression of fear on her face. Since her mother had already met her, it appears quite unreasonable that her mother would not be able to notice whether the victim was under any kind of fear or trauma.
27. As per the testimony of PW2 the incident had taken place three times i.e. first time in January 2013, second time on April 19, 2013 and third time on April 24, 2013. As already stated that accused and victim were residing in separate two colonies. There is no evidence on record that all the incidents had taken place at the same time. As per the testimony of PW6 victim and her mother even failed to disclose the approximate time of the incident. It is pertinent to state that complainant had disclosed the approximate time of incident between 4 PM to 5 PM. Since accused was not residing in the said colony, it was not easy for him to know at what time victim would come for cycling. It is pertinent to state that there is no allegation that accused was also seen in the colony between the incident of January 2013 to April 19, 2013. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it appears quite unreasonable that on all the three occasions, accused would SC No. 97/13 15 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar come all of sudden and found the victim alone riding the cycle.
28. Now coming to the case law on the evidential value of a child witness.
29. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 at page 343 it was held:-
The entire prosecution case rested upon the evidence of Sarubai (PW 2) a child witness aged about 10 years. It is, therefore, necessary to find out as to whether her evidence is corroborated from other evidence on record. A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated before a conviction can be allowed to stand but, however as a rule of prudence the court always finds it desirable to have the corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record. In the light of this well-settled principle we March proceed to consider the evidence of Sarubai (PW 2).
(emphasis supplied)
(i) In Panchhi v. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177 at page 181 Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, contended that it is very risky to place reliance on the evidence of PW 1, he being a child witness. According to the learned SC No. 97/13 16 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar counsel, the evidence of a child witness is generally unworthy of credence. But we do not subscribe to the view that the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring.
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) In Hamza v. Muhammedkutty, (2013) 11 SCC 150 at page 161 The learned counsel for the State is right that the consistent version of PW 1 is that A-1 and A-2 have committed murder of the deceased. But the High Court has rightly relied on the observations of this Court in Suresh v. State of U.P. [(1981) 2 SCC 569 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 559] that children mix up what they see and what they like to imagine to have seen. Glanville Williams says in his book The Proof of Guilt, 3rd Edn., published by Stevens & Sons:
"Children are suggestible and sometimes given to living in a world of make-believe. They are egocentric, and only slowly learn the duty of speaking the truth."
Hence, the proposition laid down by the courts that as a rule of practical wisdom, the evidence of child witness must find adequate corroboration. (Panchhi v. State of U.P. [(1998) 7 SCC 177 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1561] (emphasis supplied)
30. In the light of the discrepancies as already highlighted in the testimony of victim, I am of the considered opinion that rules of prudence demands that her testimony be not accepted unless same is corroborated on some material aspects from other sources. Since in the instant case SC No. 97/13 17 of 18 State Vs. Parveen Kumar prosecution failed to produce any corroborative piece of evidence, I am of the considered opinion that it will not be safe to record conviction on the sole uncorroborated statement of victim.
31. No doubt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, presumption lies in favour of prosecution and onus is upon the accused to establish that he had not committed the said offence. But it is also settled law that presumption can be rebutted by referring to the evidence led by the prosecution and there is no requirement to lead any independent evidence to rebut the presumption. As already discussed, accused has raised sufficient doubt over the prosecution case by referring to the evidence led by the prosecution. Thus, to my mind, Section 29 of the POCSO Act is also not helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of doubt.
33. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act read with Section 354 A IPC, thus, I hereby acquit the accused Parveen Kumar from all the charges.
Announced in the open Court
on this 20th day of August,2014 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01
CENTRAL/THC, DELHI/sv
SC No. 97/13 18 of 18