State v. Mahender Pal

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. APRIL 04, 2019/afa

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 04.04.2019 CRL.L.P. 632/2018 & CRL. M.A. 33303/2018 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State with SI Janak Singh, PS Okhla Industrial Area. versus MAHENDER PAL ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL % CRL. M.A. 33303/2018 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CRL. L.P. 632/2018 1. By this petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as 'Cr.P.C'), the petitioner/State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO), South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC') & Section 8 of` POCSO Act in FIR No.210/2013 registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Learned Trial Court, are as under: - "Brief facts of the prosecution case, as per final report, are that on receiving DD No.6A dated 22.04.2013, SI Sanjeev Kumar along with Constable Deepak had met complainant 'P', minor girl aged about 14 years along with her father Shri 'R' {(The names/particulars of child victim and her family member are being withheld to protect their identity as per Section 33(7) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act)} and she complained she has studied up to class 7th and came to Delhi two years ago along with her parents and they are residing in a tenanted premises and her Mausi is also residing in her neighbourhood and on 22.04.2013 at about 11.00 am she had gone to the roof of her Mausi's house for drying clothes and accused, Mahender, who is known to her and he is brother-in-law (sala) of Mr. Guddu called her and when she went to him the accused had caught her hand and taken her in a room and closed the door. It was further complained that she raised the alarm and got her hand freed thereafter she came out of the room and raised alarm. Thereafter, public persons and her mother and Mausi gathered there and called the police. On the basis of said complaint, FIR No.210/2013 was registered at PS OIA U/s 354-A IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act and the matter was taken up for investigation. 3. During the course of investigation, the victim was got medically examined and her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Statements of witnesses were also recorded by the police and accused Mahender Pal was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 354-A IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. 4. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was provided copy of charge sheet and documents. Thereafter, arguments on the point of charge were heard and based upon the material on record, charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has examined 08 witnesses in all. 6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he claimed innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated as there was a fight/quarrel between his sister and mother of the prosecutrix and when he had tried to resolve the matter, mother of the prosecutrix threatened him to implicate in a false case. The accused examined one witness in his defence i.e. DW-1. 7. The learned Trial Court, upon analysis, examination and evaluation of the prosecution evidence and after considering the rival submissions recorded acquittal in favour of the accused for the charged offences. 8. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned counsel for the State, opened his submissions by