State (Nct of Delhi) v. Vishal

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. MARCH 29, 2019 SU

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. L.P. 824/2018 % Judgment reserved on: 20th March, 2019 Judgment pronounced on: 29th March, 2019 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ....Appellant Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State with SI Raju Yadav, PS Sultanpuri. Versus VISHAL ....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. By this petition under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as 'Cr.P.C'), the appellant/State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi whereby the respondent/Vishal was acquitted of the charge under Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 504 read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC') in FIR No.659/2013, Police Station Sultan Puri. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:- "i. On 12.07.2013 Smt. R and Sh. M came to PS alongwith their respective daughters S and P and reported that one boy Vishal who is student of class IX in the school of victims has misbehaved with their daughters yesterday and today and also threatened to deface them with blade and acid. ii. DD No. 25A was recorded in this regard and NGO was called to counsel the victims and there statements were recorded where they stated that they are students of class VII in govt. school D-2, Sultan Puri and on 11.07.2013, they were standing at the door of their class room when the neighbor Vishal who is in class IX came there and asked them to marry him or else he will deface them with blade and acid. When they told him that they will inform the principal then he replied "principal kya mera danda ukhad legi" then they informed this to their madam who asked them to go to the class room. After school was over, victims informed to their respective parents. Today when they came to the school them he again asked whether they want to marry him or not. They informed the principal who called the PS. iii. On their statements DD No. 69B was recorded as accused Vishal appeared to be a juvenile. IO carried out the investigation and accused was apprehended and was produced before JJB-II. JJB conducted the age inquiry on the accused and vide order dated 10.10.2013 declared him adult as on the date of incident. iv. Thereafter on 22.10.2013, present FIR was registered and statement of the victim P was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C where victim S was not traceable at that time. Accused was granted anticipatory bail on 20.11.2013." 3. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 12 of POCSO Act or in the alternate Section 509 read with Section 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses in all. 4. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein he stated that a FIR bearing no. 382/2013 dated 25.06.2013 has been registered against the parents of victim (S) in which his mother is a witness and as such he has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of their parents. The accused lead four witnesses in his defence. 5. After appreciating and considering the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charged offences. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. G.M. Farooqui, learned counsel for the State opened his submissions by contending that the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2018 is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is against the facts and the settled proposition of law. He further submitted that both the victims have been consistent in their testimonies and the trial court acquitted the accused on the basis of minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the case. 7. The learned APP further submitte