Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
13 Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005249
21. It is thus seen that extreme carefulness in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix has to be observed. In the instant case, the date of alleged incident is 29.12.2015 and the matter was reported on 01.01.2016. The only delay explained by the mother of the prosecutrix is that she did not know the identity of the accused on 29.12.2015. PW- 2/mother of the victim admits that on the date of incident i.e. on 29.12.2015 itself the victim had told her about the incident. She explained that after 2-3 days when the victim saw the accused, she called her mother and pointed out towards the accused that he is the same person who committed wrong act with her. On pointing out by the victim, PW-2/mother of the victim, went to the room of the accused and apprehended him and she came to know the name of the accused as Dil Bahadur. She therefore, reported the matter to police on 100 number. Ex.PW8/A is the intimation recorded by the police in Form 8 of the Delhi Police Control Room. The nature of allegation recorded therein is 'eve teasing'. The entry of intimation of call at 100 number is dated 31.12.2015 at 08:47 PM. Name of the appellant is mentioned therein that the appellant „Dil Bahadur' had committed the offence. The MLC is Ex.PW6/A dated 31.12.2105 at 10:49 PM.
23. Fourthly, PW-2/mother of the victim speaks only about a single incident of sexual assault. In her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., child victim also speaks about a single incident of assault on 29.12.2015. In statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, the child victim says that the accused was regularly committing sexual assault. PW-5 in her statement states that when she asked the child victim about the incident, she told her that the accused did not commit any wrong with her. PW-5 is the prosecution witness, who has not been declared hostile. The evidence of the prosecution witness can be relied upon by the accused if the witness has not been declared hostile (See:- Raja Ram (supra) & Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari (supra). It is thus seen that there are material inconsistencies relating to the happening of the offence, there are statement that range between a single assault, repeated assault and no assault taking place. It is to be noted that in the police Form the incident recorded was only of „eve-teasing‟ (EX- PW8/A). Thus, the original complaint started with „eve-teasing‟ which went upto 'single assault' and finally reached upto "repeated assault".