BADKU Vs. STATE
LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-101
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on June 02,2016

Badku Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.P.GARG,J. - (1.)Aggrieved by a judgment dated 06.01.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.173/13 arising out of FIR No.276/13 registered at Police Station Begumpur by which the appellant- Badku was held guilty for committing offence under Sections 9(1) and (m) punishable Section 10 POCSO Act and under Section 354/506 IPC, he has preferred the instant appeal. By an order dated 08.01.2014, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 2,000/- under Section 10 POCSO Act and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
(2.)Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the charge-sheet was that on 24.08.2013 in a society in Pocket 6, Sector-24, Rohini, the appellant working as Chowkidar outraged the modesty of a child ?X? (assumed name) aged around eight years and criminally intimidated her. The incident was reported to the police of Police Station Begumpur vide Daily Diary (DD) No.79-B (Ex.PW-5/A) on 22.08.2013 at 8.57 p.m. The investigation was assigned to SI Sapan Kumar who with Ct. Rajesh went to the spot. After recording statement of victim?s mother-Rajni Jain (Ex.PW- 3/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. Statement of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. ?X? recorded her 164 Cr.P.C.statement. The accused was arrested and medically examined. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the court. The prosecution examined six witnesses to establish its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.
(3.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. In the statement (Ex.PW3/A), the victim?s mother-Rajni gave detailed account as to how and in what manner the accused, Chowkidar in the society, used to outrage the modesty of her daughter (aged around eight years) for the last about three months. The accused used to kiss her; touch her breast. The victim did not disclose the incident due to threats extended by the accused. On 22.08.2013 when her daughter apprised her about the occurrence, she confronted the appellant who was thrashed by the public. The complainant made a call at 100. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.CW-1/A) recorded on 24.08.2013, the victim implicated the appellant to be the individual who used to outrage her modesty in various manners by touching her on private parts inappropriately. The prosecutrix did not disclose the obnoxious conduct of the accused to her parents due to threats extended by him. The prosecutrix appeared before the court as CW-2. Before recording her statement, the learned Presiding Officer put various questions to ascertain if she was competent to give rational answers. After recording her satisfaction that the witness was capable of understanding the questions and answer them reasonably, her statement was recorded without administering oath. The Trial Court made the victim comfortable during her deposition. Drawings collectively exhibited as Annexure P-1 were drawn by her. These drawings show that the victim was quite intelligent to understand the questions.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.