Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the 1 of 112 PS - Narela report under section 173 Cr.P.C. is as under :­ That on 15/02/2011, complainant Fazra S/o Saddiq R/o 225, Gali no. 1, New Basti Bankner, Narela, Delhi, came to the Police station and got recorded his statement which is to the effect that, he lives at the said address and works in private security. He leaves for his duty at about 6:40 a.m. from his house. He is having five children. His eldest son also goes for his labour work. His wife Zarina also leaves for jungle for grazing goats. Her daughter prosecutrix (name withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) aged about 15 years stays at home with her younger brothers and she is of low intelligence (mand budhi) and is not able to tell anything rightly and even cannot tell her age and is illiterate. Four days ago, his wife Zarina told him that his neighbour Mahender had committed molestation (chedh chadh) with her daughter/prosecutrix. He (Fazra) himself also inquired from his daughter/prosecutrix and this incident is of dated 12/02/2011. His daughter/prosecutrix told him (Fazra) that neighbour Mahender taking the benefit of the isolation (ekant) in the day had touched her (prosecutrix) private parts and had told her not to disclose about this to anyone. His daughter/prosecutrix told all about the incident to his wife when she returned in the evening 2 of 112 PS - Narela and then his wife had told him (Fazra) about the incident. He (Fazra) till by this time was consulting with his known persons (jaankaron se) as to what action should be taken regarding the activity (harkat) committed by Mahender. But nobody gave him any advice. Today, (15/02/2011) he alongwith his daughter/prosecutrix and his wife has come to the Police Station to lodge the report. Mahender has committed molestation (chedh chadh) with his daughter/prosecutrix, legal action be taken against him and the medical examination of her daughter/prosecutrix be got conducted. Statement has been heard and is correct. On the basis of the said statement and from the inquiries made SI Mohd. Ayub got registered the case u/s 354 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. During the course of investigation, accused Mahender was arrested and released on Police bail. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted vide MLC no. 167/11 from SRHC Hospital, Narela. On her MLC, doctor endorsed alleged H/o sexual assault. Prosecutrix did not co­operate during her medical examination. From SRHC Hospital, prosecutrix was referred to Dr. BSA Hospital for further medical examination from SRHC Hospital. Medical examination of the prosecutrix vide MLC no. 53/11 was got conducted in Dr. BSA 3 of 112 PS - Narela Hospital, on which Doctor had endorsed alleged H/o sexual assault as told by patient herself and her father, on L/E :­ Hymen torn (no evidence of recent fresh trauma). No evidence of any external injury visible (fresh) over genitals or other body parts. No scratch mark over genitals or other body parts. No discharge. P/V :­ no bleeding, P/V :­ anal opening intact, no tear, no fresh injury, scanty pubic hair. PV not done. No evidence of any fresh external injury over genitals or other body parts. Opinion reserved till Forensic Science Lab. report and also advised radiology reference for X­ray of long bones for age estimation. Due to the bad condition (tabiyat kharab rehne ki vajah se) of the prosecutrix, she was admitted in the hospital by the Doctor. After her discharge from the hospital, her statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded. On the basis of her statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C., section 354 IPC was converted into section 376 IPC. On 08/03/2011, accused Mahender was re­arrested, in this case. Bone­age medical of the prosecutrix was got conducted from SRHC hospital and the opinion was obtained.

10 of 112 PS - Narela PW10 ­ Dr. P. Arioli CAS Dental, SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, who has seen bone age estimation report of prosecutrix (name withheld) dated 19/04/2011 which was prepared by Dr. Sahaj Chopra, Radiologist in the said Hospital. The said Doctor has left the services of the Hospital and his present whereabouts are not aware. He is acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Sahaj Chopra as he has seen him signing and writing in the official course of duties. The bone age estimation report is Ex. PW10/A which bears signatures of Dr. Sahaj Chopra at point 'A' in which the age of the patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) has been opined as, 'not less than 14 years and not more than 16 years'.

PW10 ­ Dr. P. Arioli CAS Dental, SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, who proved the bone age estimation report of the prosecutrix prepared by Dr. Sahaj Chopra, Radiologist and has deposed that he has seen bone age estimation report of prosecutrix (name withheld) dated 19/04/2011 which was prepared by Dr. Sahaj Chopra, Radiologist in the said Hospital. The said Doctor has left the services of the Hospital and his present whereabouts are not aware. He is acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Sahaj Chopra as he has seen him signing and writing in the official course of duties. The bone age estimation report is Ex. PW10/A which bears signature of Dr. Sahaj Chopra at point 'A' in which the age of the patient/prosecutrix (name withheld) has been opined as 'not less than 14 years and not more than 16 26 of 112 PS - Narela years'.

Despite grant of opportunity, PW10 ­ Dr. P. Arioli was not cross­examined on behalf of the accused. Nor any evidence to the contrary has been produced or proved on the record by the accused.

In the circumstances, it stands proved that the estimated age of prosecutrix was not less than 14 years and not more than 16 years as on the date of bone age estimation on 19/04/2011.

As the date of alleged incident is 12/02/2011 and the estimated age of the prosecutrix is not less than 14 years and not more than 16 years as on the date of bone age estimation on 19/04/2011, on simple arithmetical calculation, the age of prosecutrix comes to between 14­16 years as on the date of incident on 12/02/2011.