Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The complainant, i.e., the child victim‟s grandmother, was examined as PW-4. She identified the appellant in Court and stated that he was her second husband. Her first husband had passed away 15-16 years ago. One of her two sons from her previous marriage, along with his wife and two children, used to reside with her. He was not residing with her at the time, and his wife had eloped with someone 5-6 years ago, leaving their two children, i.e., the child victim and her brother „A‟, under the witness‟ care. One day, while coming back with the child victim in a bus, the child victim told her that the appellant had been committing penetrative sexual assault upon her and that he had also inserted his finger into her private parts. She did not immediately lodge a complaint as she was suffering from some problem in the joint of her shoulder at the time and had been operated upon. She further stated that on 16.10.2015 at about 7.30 P.M., she caught the appellant red-handed, committing sexual assault upon the child victim. She stated that she had seen the appellant put his hand inside the child victim‟s underwear and fondle her private parts. She could not report the matter to the police on the day itself as she was not feeling well and she had to gather the courage to go to the police. She discussed the matter with relatives and friends, as a result of which several days elapsed, and ultimately, she reported the matter to the police on 05.11.2015. She proved her complaint as Ex. PW-4/A. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had been operated upon on 08.01.2014 and was still getting treatment from the hospital. She admitted that she and her husband, i.e., the appellant, had once quarreled over the issue of her son, i.e., the child victim‟s father, staying with her. She stated it to be correct that she had lodged a complaint against the appellant, while they were married, alleging that he had committed sexual assault upon her at knife-point prior to their getting married. She denied the suggestions that she had falsely implicated the appellant to get rid of him as he had been objecting to her son staying in their jhuggi or that she had filed false complaints against him earlier as well.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there are inconsistencies in the various statements of the child victim, and that the same indicates tutoring, in this case at the instance of the child victim‟s grandmother. He has submitted that the allegation at the first instance was merely of fondling of private parts, and that the allegations qua fingering and penetration, based on which the appellant has been convicted under Section 6 read with Sections 5

(m) & (p) POCSO, were introduced belatedly.

13. It is observed on a perusal of the record that the child victim, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., on being asked what had happened to her, had simply stated that her grandfather had fondled her private parts. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. however, which was recorded a few days later, the child victim put forth allegations qua disrobing, fondling, penetration, and threats being made to her life. Further, the allegation regarding fingering appeared for the first time, insofar as the child victim‟s statements are concerned, only during the child victim‟s deposition. Notably however, the allegation regarding the appellant extending threats against the victim‟s life disappeared at the stage of her deposition, and the Trial Court accordingly acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 506 IPC.

17. However, the child victim has remained consistent throughout with respect to the allegation regarding the appellant fondling her private parts. The said allegation was levelled in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as in her Court deposition. The child victim‟s grandmother, too, has consistently stated about witnessing the appellant fondle the child victim‟s private parts.