Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The case of the prosecutrix in brief is that on 25.03.2013 at about 07.34 p.m. information was received at police station Shahbad Dairy about a girl being taken by a boy at A Block, Nirankari Bhawana, Akhara Road, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi. This information was reduced into writing as DD no. 65B and it was marked to SI Surender for taking necessary action. SI Surender alongwith Ct. Mahesh went to the spot, where they found that lot of people had gathered and a boy was apprehended by the public persons whose name was revealed as Bijender, s/o. Sh. Ram Avtar and he had been beaten up by STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 1 of page 20 the public severely. They also found the complainant Kamal at the spot, who made statement to the police that his daughter namely H (identity withheld) aged 7 years had gone alongwith her cousin at about 7.30p.m to ease herself at Shauchalya near the jhuggi. His daughter returned back sobbing and she narrated that when she and her cousin reached at Shauhchalaya a boy forcibly took her inside the Shauchalaya, by gagging her mouth and forcibly started taking out her clothes and when she resisted, he tore her clothes and started touching her chest. She raised alarm and in the meantime, her cousin came at the spot alongwith other public persons and apprehended the said boy and beat him at the spot. SI Surender reduced this complaint into writing and on the basis of the same, he got the FIR registered through Ct. Mahesh. Since accused Bijender was beaten up by the public persons, he was medically examined in Maharishi Valmiki Hospital through Ct. Ravi. Thereafter, accused Bijender was arrested.

2. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. The statement of the victim ' H' was also got recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. from Ld. Magistrate. After recording the statement of witnesses and completion of investigation, he filed the challan in the court u/s. 354A/354B IPC and u/s. 8 of POCSO Act.

3. Ld MM after compliance of provision u/s 207 Cr.P.C STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 2 of page 20 committed the case to Sessions Court through Ld District Judge which was assigned to this court.

19. However, it is proved that he made physical contact with the victim H with explicit sexual overtures and he sexually harassed her and he used criminal force against her with intent to disrobe her in public place and the offence u/s. 354A IPC and Section 354 B IPC are proved.

20. It is argued by the ld. Defence counsel that prosecution has not filed any documents on record in support of its contention that the age of the victim H was 7 years. It is controverted by ld. Addl. PP for the State. In my view, even if STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 10 of page 20 the investigating agency has not collected any document in support of age of the victim, it is of no consequence. It is only for the applicability of the POCSO Act that the age of the victim has to be below 18 years. As stated above, prosecution has not been able to prove its case u/s. 10 of the POCSO Act. For the applicability of the Section 354A and 354B IPC no particular age of the victim is required. Victim H was examined in Court as PW1, she stated her age to be of 7 years. The evidence was recorded by the undersigned, had it appeared to the Court that the victim H was looking more than of her stated age, this Court would have given its observation during the examination of the child. If required, the defence could have called the record from her school, if they could have derived any advantage from them. No such record has been summoned. Hence, there is no merit in this contention of ld. Counsel for the defence.

26. In totality of the facts and circumstances, accused Bijender is convicted for offence u/s. 354A/354B IPC, however he is acquitted for offence u/s. 10 of the POCSO Act.

STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT// page 17 of page 20

27. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence separately.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT                                                      (DEEPAK GARG)
TODAY i.e. ON 25.08.2014                                      ASJ -01:(NORTH):ROHINI:DELHI




STATE VS BIJENDER// FIR NO. 160/13// PS SHAHBAD DAIRY // US 354A/354B IPC & 8 POCSO ACT//    page 18 of page 20