Full Text
#4 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with Insp. Satya Pal Singh with SI
Sanju Rai, PS Bharat Nagar For the Respondents : Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Manu Sharma, Mr. Kartik Khanna and Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocates for R-2
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. There can be no manner of doubt that a conviction for committing penetrative sexual assault can be sustained on 2018:DHC:7753-DB the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. [Ref: Boby vs. State, Crl.A 1119/2014; Vishnu (alias) Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2006) 1 SCC 283; State of M.P vs. Dayal Sahu, reported as (2005) 8 SCC 122)]. However, it is equally well established that, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be creditworthy and inspire confidence.
2. The State has instituted the present petition seeking grant of leave to assail the judgment dated 04.04.2018, in Session Case No.106/2014, arising out of FIR No.170/2014(hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject FIR’) under sections 376D/109 Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with sections 04/06/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’) registered at Police Station-Bharat Nagar; whereby the Trial Court has specified the operative portion.
3. In sum and substance, it is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as the ‘victim’), along with her mother came to the police station at 11:50 pm on 25.03.2014 and made the following statement: “बयान िकया िक đœ ê čēļ ƅ पते पर अपने đʃ ı पापा क े साथ रहती šŁ और 4th class đŐ पढ़ती šŁ ͡ कल िदनांक 24.03.14 को साथ करीब 2:30 बजे ĕƘ ı जो मेरी friend है मुझे Vicky क े घर लेकर गयी थी तब वहां पर कोई नहीं था। घर की øIJ Ƿ ı बंद थी और खुला Šç ताला लटका था और वहां पर कोई नहीं था क ु छ देर बाद वहां पर तीन लोग आये वो लोग खाना लेकर आये थे, िजसमे से एक ने drink कर रखी थी, उसक े बाद हमने खाना खाया, िफर ĕƘ ı ने मुझसे कहा िक आजा काम करवा ले तो đœ ċĸ कहा तू मुझे पहले घर छोड़ कर आजा तू चाहे िजतना रह लेना, उसने कहा िक đœ ćIJ ʉ ĸ सुबह छोड़ दूँगी, पर đœ ċĸ कहा िक नहीं मुझे ÿ ʗ ı छोड़ दे तो बोली िक đœ तेरी đʃ ı को सब क ु छ समझा दूँगी, और मुझसे बोली िक तू úȽ ĭकाम करवा ले तो तुझे पैसे Į đĕŐ úĸ तो đœ ċĸ मना कर िदया िफर उसने मुझे đʃ ı की कसम दी तो đœ ĕƘ ı क े साथ सो गयी। िफर रात đŐ ĕƘ ı ने Vicky और उसक े uncle क े साथ गलत काम िकया िफर Vicky मेरे पास आ गया और बोला िक मेरे साथ कर ले तो तुझे पेसे Į đĕŐ úĸ नहीं तो मेरे से बुरा कोई नहीं होगा और िफर vikcy ने मेरे साथ गलत काम िकया, िफर सुबह को ĕƘ ı जब अनपेन घर जाने लगी तो đœ भी पीछे से िनकल गयी और अपने घर आ गयी िफर अपनी đʃ ı को साड़ी बात बता दी। तब ĕƘ ı मुझे लेकर थाने đŐआ गयी। उनक े İ ù ĕĭ Ď कानूनी ø ĭ ĒŊ ęĭ Ğı की जाए आपने मेरा बयान िलखा, सुन िलया ठीक Ğœ ͡ तभी िशकायत ने हािजर थाना आकर अपना बयां čIJ ʱ Ğÿ ĭ तहरीर कराया, िजस सरसरी तौर पूछताछ क े बाद NGO को बुलाकर लड़की की Counselling करवाई तथा BJRH Hospital से vide MLC No.-75587/14 पर medical कराया िजसमे Dr. ने A/H of Sexual assault तहरीर फ़रमाया, िजस पर लड़की क े बयान से हालात से मुलािहजा MLC से व Counselling Report न से अपराध u/s-376 IPC तथा 4POCSO का सरज़द होना पाया जाता है िलहाजा तहरीर हजा ďúŊ ÿ कायमी मुकदमा ďĉ̾ Ĉ Ct. Ramchander no.1536/NW अरसाल थाना है। मुकदमा ĉÿ Ŋ ēĮ ÿ ː ē करक े न० मुकदमा से èȅĕĭदी जाये। मन SI đĚŝ Ď ďĭ ćɞ ıĚ š ͡ “
4. On her statement, the subject FIR came to be registered and the victim was both medically examined, as well as, counselled.
5. Subsequent thereto, at the instance of the victim, the IO is stated to have prepared the site plan of the place of incident, but was unable to arrest the accused, since the premises was found locked. Subsequently, the statement of the victim was also recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the Magistrate concerned on 28.03.2014 and the respondents herein, as well as, a juvenile Laxmi were arrested.
6. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The following charges were framed against the respondents: I) Respondent No.1
(i) Charges for commission of offence punishable under section 363 IPC read with 109 IPC and punishable under section 4 read with 3(a) of POCSO Act and in the alternate section 376(2) (i) IPC II) Respondent No.2
(ii) Charges for the offence punishable 363 IPC read with Section 109 IPC and 16 & 17 POCSO Act read with 107 and 109 IPC
7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined, as many as, 13 witnesses.
8. There is, however, no gainsaying the fact that, the star witness of the prosecution is the victim herself; and resultantly, her testimony is critical to the case of the prosecution.
9. It would, therefore, be necessary and appropriate to extract the victim’s testimony in extenso:
Ans. 24 tarikh, saal 2014, tisra mahina (3rd month), karib 2:00-2:30AM, meri saheli Laxmi mujhe apne friend ke ghar party me lekargayi. Court Ques. Woh apko kis jagah le gayi thi ? Ans. Woh tdh mujhe pata nahl hai par hum pehle uss gali me rehte the.
Ans. Uss ghar me kundi lagi huyi thi aur tala latka hua tha (the door of the house was bolted and an unbolted lock was hanging). Uss ghar me koi nahi tha.
Ans. Laxmi ne kaha tu darwaza khol, maine manna kar diya. Laxmi ne darwaza khola. Ghar me koi nahi tha. Ans. Laxmi ne bola ki tu beth ja woh aate honge. Thodi derr me 3ladke aa gaye.
Ans. Ha mein unko shakal se pehchan lungi. Ans. Woh ladke khana lekar aaye the (they had brought food). Ek ne drink kar rakhi thi. Woh ladka thodi derr baad khana khakar chala gaya. Ans. Hum dono so gaye. Court Ques. Hum dono kaun ? Ans. Mein aur'Laxmi. Ans. Laxmi ne kaha ki tu Vicky ke sath so ja. Maine mana kiya toh usne kaha ki tujhe mummy ki kasam hai. Mein tujhe savere ghar par chhod aaungi. Ans. Laxmi ne kaha tu 'kaam karwa le'. Maine kaha nahi behein tu mujhe ghar chhod aa. Court Ques. 'Kaam karwane' se kya matlab hai ? Ans. Galatkam. Ans. Vicky ka uncle Hindu Rao apni wife ko dekhne chala gaya. Usne bahar se tala laga diya. Ans. Phir Vicky ne mere sath galatkam kiya. Court Ques.: 'galatkam’ se apka kya matlab hai ? Ans. Usne apni niche wali jagah mere peshab karnewali jagah me dalne ko kaha. Maine manna kiya toh usne gubare jaisi (balloon like) cheej nikali aur niche apni peshab ki jagah par lagayi aur mere pishab ki jagah me dalne ki kaushish kar raha tha par puri nahi gayi thodi si gayi. Ans. Vicky ka uncle wapas aa gaya. Tab Laxmi bhi apni chappal pehan kar chalne lagi. Maine kaha ki mujhe bhi ghar le chal par usne kuch nahi bola aur woh nikal gayi. Mein bhi rote rote uske peeche nikal gayi. Laxmi ka baap (father) usse raste me mil gaya aur woh apne baap ke sath chali gayi. Ans. Mein apne ghar par aa gayi. Mummy ne pucha toh mein rone lagi. Mummy ne kaha ki nahi marungi tu bata. Tab maine mummy ko sab bata diya. Court Ques. Beta Jab Vicky apke sath galatkam kar raha tha tab Laxmi kaha thi ? Ans. Laxmi Manish ke sath galatkam kar rahi thi. Usne mujhe kaha tha ki tujhe paise mileage tu kaam karwa le nahi toh tujhe mummy ki kasam hai. Ans. Mummy mujhe chowki le aayi. Maine aaj jo bataya woh police ko chowki me bata diya tha. At this stage, the witness is shown her complaint from the judicial file and she" identifies her signatures at point "A"thereupon. The complaint is now exhibited as Ex.PW-7/A. Q. Beta kya aap pehle bhi Court aaye the ? Ans. Ha mein Court aayi thi aur maine sab baat Judge Saheb ko batayi thi. At this stage, the statement of the witness u/s. 164 CrPC already Ex.PW-3/B is shown to the witness from the judicial file and she identifies her signatures at point "A" thereupon.
Ans. Police mujhe hospital le gayi aur phir mujhe meri behein ke ghar le gayi jaha par mere se puchtach karke mere bayaan likhe the. Ans. Maine police ko Vicky ka ghar dikhaya tha jaha par mere sath galatkam hua tha. Ans. Ghar par Vicky nahi mila, uske ghar par tala laga hua tha.
Ans. Ha. At this stage, the wooden partition has been removed. The witness identifies the younger accused as accused Vicky, who had committed wrong act with her and the older accused as accused Manish, uncle of accused Vicky, who had committed wrong act with Laxmi. Court Observation: The witness has correctly identified both the accused persons. Court Observation: Aap raat ko 2:00-2:30 AM par Laxmi ke sath kyu gaye the? Ans. Mein 6:00 PM par bazaar gayi thi papa ne mujhe samaan lene bheja tha. Tab mujhe Laxmi mili aur mujhe lekar gayi. Court Ques.: Abhi apne bataya tha ki Laxmi apko 2:00- 2:30 AM par lekar gayi thi aura b aap bata rahe ho ki 6:00 PM le gayi thi, dono me se kaun si baat thik hai? Ans. Who mujhe 6:00 PM par le gayi thi. Maine 2:00-2:30 AM baje ka time galati se likhwa diya kyunki mein bul gayi thi. Xxxxxx By Ms. Urmil Yadav, LAC for accused Vicky and Ms. Babita for accused Manish.
10. On a conspectus of the material evidence on record, there are two issues that arise for consideration in the present leave petition.
11. The first issue that needs determination is, as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the date of birth of the victim, so as to bring home the guilt of the accused under the ambit of the provisions of the POCSO Act.
12. The second issue upon which the determination of the present leave petition hinges, is as to whether the testimony of the victim can be said to be creditworthy and reliable.
13. Insofar as, the first question is concerned, it is an admitted position that, although the prosecution filed one school certificate of the victim issued by the MCD Primary School, Wazirpur along with the charge sheet; no witness to prove the same was either cited or examined at the trial. The said certificate not having been proved in accordance with law, was rightly eschewed from consideration by the Trial Court.
14. Insofar as, the more significant second issue is concerned, the learned Trial Court, after examining the material evidence on record and in particular the testimony of the victim and after hearing counsel for the parties, opined as follows:
15. Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently urge that, based on the testimony of the victim, the offences for which the accused was charged had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, by the prosecution.
16. Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned APP has taken us through the testimony of the prosecutrix in Court as hereinbefore extracted, as well as, her statement made under section 161 of Cr.P.C at the concerned police station on 25.03.2014; and before the Magistrate concerned under section 154 of Cr.P.C on 28.03.2014, to urge that, the same is cogent, consistent and creditworthy.
17. We, however, find ourselves unable to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the State, for the following reasons.
18. Subjected to scrutiny warranted by law, the testimony of the victim unravels, insofar as, the material particulars of the incident are concerned and the same is brought into sharp focus in particular by the victim’s answer, to a specific query put to her by the Learned Trial Judge, which clearly demonstrates that her testimony is neither creditworthy nor reliable.
19. In this behalf, it would be profitable to extract the query and the victim’s response thereto, and the same is reproduced as follows: “Court Ques: Aap raat ko 2:00-2:30 AM par Laxmi ke sath kyu gaye the? Ans. Mein 6:00 PM par bazaar gayi thi papa ne mjhe samaan lene bheja tha. Tab mujhe Laxmi mili aur mujhe lekar gayi. Court Ques.: Abhi apne bataya tha ki Laxmi apko 2:00-2:30 AM par lekar gayi thi aur ab aap bata rahe ho ki 6:00 PM par le gayi thi, dono me se kaun si baat thik hai? Ans. Woh mujhe 6:00 PM par le gayi thi. Maine 2:00-2:30 AM baje ka time Galati se likhwa diya kyunki mein bul gayi thi."
20. The above response is completely contrary to her testimony given prior to the answer to the Court question and belies her deposition in toto.
21. Furthermore, there is no explanation offered by the prosecutrix for having specifically named respondent No.1, Vicky in the statement that resulted in the registration of the subject FIR, since it was her assertion that, she was a complete stranger to the latter, at the time of the commission of the offence; juxtaposed when it is with the admitted fact that, Vicky resided in the neighbourhood. The testimony of the victim is therefore contradictory in material particulars and does not have a ring of truth in it; and in our view, is neither reliable nor creditworthy.
22. It would also be pertinent to observe that, at the hour when the commission of the offence is stated to have occurred, the juvenile Laxmi was admittedly with her mother at her house.
23. Lastly, it is also relevant to observe that, the MLC of the victim did not show any sign of sexual assault; her hymen was found intact with no sign of recent injury, and further no vaginal discharge was detected.
24. This leads to but one inescapable conclusion that, there was no sexual assault. Even otherwise, the contradictory testimony of the victim does not inspire confidence and we are consequently, unable to find ourselves to characterise it as either creditworthy or reliable. The second issue raised in these proceedings is, therefore, also decided against the State and in favour of the respondents.
25. In view of the foregoing, the present leave petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (JUDGE) DECEMBER 07, 2018 as /ns