Gopi@Kala v. State of Punjab

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶1The present revision petition is preferred against judgment dated

14.10.2013  passed by learned  Special Judge, Sangrur  in FIR No.  41  dated

04.04.2013 registered under Sections 363, 377 of the IPC and Section 3, 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter 'the POCSO Act') at Police Station Ahmedgarh whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under: Offence Sentence Section 4 of the POCSO Act Rigorous imprisonment 10 years and a fine   of   Rs.   10,000/-   in   default   of which,   rigorous   imprisonment   of   1 year

¶2Briefly, the facts are that on 03.04.2013, the petitioner-accused visited the rehri of the Rati Ram, grandfather of the victim, where the victim was also present. The petitioner took the victim, a 5 years old boy, to a jhuggi, removed his 2024.03.20 16p:4a8nts and sodomised him. The victim was kept there for the whole night and only CRA-S-1653-SB-2014                                                                                      2 returned home in the morning of 04.04.2013. He informed his grandfather of the incident and the matter was reported to the police.

¶3The prosecution examined 5 witnesses to establish its case while the accused failed to lead any evidence in his defence. After assessing all the material on record, the learned trial Court  convicted  the accused vide judgment dated

14.10.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a significant difference between the medical and the ocular evidence as the victim in his statement had claimed that the petitioner took of his clothes, sexually assaulted him and gagged his mouth. However, the medico-legal report as proved by PW1-Dr. Gurdeep Singh, states that no contusion, bleeding or pain was observed in the perianal area, which rules out acute penetration of the anus. In  his cross examination, PW1- Dr. Gurdeep Singh had categorically stated that there were no visible signs of carnal intercourse.   She further contends that PW-2 victim is a child witness who can easily be tutored. The victim has improved his version to add that he was beaten and gagged by the accused. Moreover, in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., PW2-victim had stated that he did not know the petitioner while his name is duly mentioned in the FIR.

¶5Learned counsel further submits that the grandfather of the victim PW3-Rati Ram did not lodge a missing complaint when his 5 years old grandson went missing. The petitioner has only been implicated due to old animosity between him and son of PW3-Rati Ram, as also stated by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Lastly, PW5-Investigating Officer did not verify the ownership of the jhuggi where the alleged incident took place.

¶6 Per contra learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court CRA-S-1653-SB-2014                                                                                      3 has correctl( appreciated the facts and the la6 to arrive at a guilt( verdict ?ua the petitioner and as such the impugned judgement 6arrants no interference b( this /ourt. ..  <aving heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case 6ith their able assistance, it transpires that the victim 6as ; (ears old at the time of the alleged offence, therefore, Section &@ of the P1/S1 Act 6ill be attracted, creating a presumption against the petitioner. +n spite of his (oung age, P=&8victim maintained his stance during cross8etiamination, inspiring confidence in his testimon(. =hile P="8>r.  urdeep Singh has stated that charges of penetrative setiual assault are ruled out, his testimon( is in the nature of an opinion. +n vie6 of the facts and circumstances of the case, 6here the petitioner too: the victim to a secluded place, :ept him there all night, removed his trousers and his o6n, and the consistent stand of the (oung victim, no other inference can be dra6n. +t is settled la6 that the evidence is not liable to be rejected merel( because it has been led b( a child 6itness. A t6o )udge bench in  State of Karnataka v. Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji and Ors. (2009) 12 SCC  !1, spea:ing through )ustice >r. Arijit Pasa(at, made the follo6ing observations: "6. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to these questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, disease , whether of mind, or any other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. This position was concisely stated by Brewer, J. in "heeler v. #nited States$ (1%9 #S %2!). The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se, but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. 2024.03.20 16:48 [See Sur&anara&ana v. State of Karnataka$ 2001(1) 'C' (Cri(inal) CRA-S-1653-SB-2014                                                                                      4 )02 * (2001(9) SCC 129)]

¶7In +attu 'a(rao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra$ 199 (!) 'C' (Cri(inal) 22  * ,(199 )% SCC !-1. it was held as follows : (SCC p. 343, para 5): "A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored." A. *urthermore, no evidence has been produced on the record to rebut the presumption under Section &@ of the P1/S1 Act or prove that the complainant part( :ne6 the petitioner before hand. As such, the allegation of previous enmit( bet6een the petitioner and uncle of the victim remains unsubstantiated. @.   #herefore, in vie6 of the discussion above the present appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment dated "$."%.&%"' passed b( learned Special )udge, Sangrur is upheld. 7HARPREET SINGH BRAR8 JUDGE 15)03)2024 Ajay Goswami

CRA-S-1653-SB-2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-1653-SB-2014 Date of decision: 15.03.2024 Gopi @ Kala ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab ****