Ravi v. State

order on sentence.

¶12Appeal is dismissed. Appellant will undergo the remaining sentence.

¶13Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for updation of the Jail record and intimation to the appellant.

¶14TCR be returned.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 'vn'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 1st March, 2018 Decided on: 13th September, 2018 + CRL.A. 657/2017 RAVI ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for the State with Ashwani Kumar, PS Jyoti Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. Ravi challenges the impugned judgment dated 17th May, 2017 convicting him for offence punishable under Section 354A IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') and the order on sentence dated 23rd May, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 months and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence punishable under Section 354A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act. 2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are improvements in the statements of the prosecutrix. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) does not depose about the previous incidents. Offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act is not made out since sexual intent is required to qualify the offence of sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of POCSO Act which is absent in the present case. 3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the very next day of the incident and the intention of the appellant is evident from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she elaborately narrates the entire incident. Furthermore, there was time gap in recording the testimony of prosecutrix in Court. Lastly, the appellant is involved in 8 other cases. 4. Prosecution case sprung out from a PCR call received on 23rd December, 2013 around 7:25 P.M. stating that "Gali No. 8, A Block, Amar Colony caller ki ladki ke saath padosi ke ladke ne ched chad ki hai". Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No. 32A and was entrusted to SI Narender (PW-10). He along with Ct. Shamsher (PW-5) went to the spot and met the prosecutrix. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded wherein she stated that she studies in class XII and appellant who stays in his neighbourhood at H.No.234, Gali No.2 used to eve tease her since last one month. However, she did not make any complaint out of shame and fear. On 23rd December, 2013 around 6:30 P.M., she was returning to her home from 'Tarun Classes' after taking tuition. When she reached near Ravi Dass Temple, Amar Colony, the appellant along with two other boys was following her and while walking he held her hand and started misbehaving with her. When she raised alarm, he ran away. When she reached home, she narrated the incident to her father who in turn called on 100 number. Aforesaid statement was recorded vide Ex. PW-2/A. On the basis of the aforesaid statement FIR No.513/2013 (Ex.PW-4/A) was registered at PS Jyoti Nagar for the offence under Section 354A IPC. SI Narender prepared the site plan (Ex.PW-10/B). Search for the appellant was made, however, he could not be traced. 5. On 24th December, 2013, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 25th December, 2013, appellant was apprehended on the basis of information received from secret informer. Appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-6/B, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-6/C and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-6/A. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Vide order dated 19th May, 2014, charge was framed against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 354A IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act. 6. Prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 in Court where she deposed in sync with her statement r