Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar @ Sheshnath vs State Nct Of Delhi on 24 August, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : AUGUST 12, 2015
DECIDED ON : AUGUST 24, 2015
+ CRL.A. 1498/2013
VINOD KUMAR @ SHESHNATH ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Azhar Qayum, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .... Respondent
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 16.08.2013
of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.76/13 arising
out of FIR No.53/2013 by which the appellant Vinod Kumar @ Sheshnath
was convicted under Section 10 & 12 of the POCSO Act read with
Section 506 IPC. By an order dated 17.08.2013, he was sentenced to
undergo RI for five years with fine `1,000/- under Section 10 POCSO
Act; RI for one year with fine `500 under Section 12 POCSO Act; and, RI
for one year under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were to run
concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, prosecution case as reflected in the charge-
sheet was that on and before 2nd February, 2013 at H.No.8-21, Gali No.5,
Tomar Colony, Burari, the appellant outraged modesty of his daughter 'X'
(assumed name), aged around 15 years. She was sexually abused and
criminally intimidated for about three years. The Investigating Officer
lodged First Information Report after recording 'X's statement (Ex.PW-
2/A) on 15.02.2013. She was medically examined; she recorded her 164
Cr.P.C. statement. The accused was arrested and medically examined.
Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant
in the court. The prosecution examined six witnesses to substantiate its
case. In 313 statement, denying his complicity in the crime, the appellant
pleaded false implication by the prosecutrix under her mother's pressure
with whom there was dispute over sale of plot at Burari. No evidence in
defence, however, was produced. The trial resulted in his conviction as
aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred
the appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the record. Appellant's conviction is primarily based upon the
sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Admitted position is that she is the
appellant's daughter and lived along with him in the house in question.
She was studying in Xth class and her date of birth recorded in the school
at the time of admission proved by PW-3 (Firoz Ahmed) was 01.07.1997.
The relevant copies are exhibited Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. The
appellant has not challenged 'X's date of birth. Apparently, she was
minor at the time of lodging the FIR.
4. In her statement (Ex.PW-2/A) to the police 'X' gave detailed
account as to how and in what manner, her modesty was outraged by her
father on different occasions. She had apprised her mother about his
nefarious activities. When she (her mother) objected to it, the appellant
gave beatings to her. Finally, she (X) was sent to her maternal uncle's
house. On 2.2.2013, the appellant, however, insisted her to come back
and criminally intimidated her and her maternal uncle. In her 164
statement (Ex.PW-2/B) recorded on 16.02.2013, again 'X' reiterated her
version and implicated her father for sexual abuse. She further disclosed
that in 2010, a quarrel had taken place over it and due to intervention of
police that time, the matter was pacified. Thereafter appellant's behaviour
and conduct was normal for about a year. Thereafter, he again started
picking up quarrel with her mother. Attributing specific role, she deposed
that her father used to stare at her at the time of her changing clothes and
taking bath. When the accused did not desist from his activities, her
mother sent her to her maternal uncle's house. In her Court statement as
PW-2 she proved the version given to the police and before the Court
without major variations. She levelled specific allegations against the
accused for outraging her modesty in various ways i.e. to touch her body
by putting his hand in her clothes; to touch her thigh, breast and cheeks in
night and to make an attempt to remove her clothes. In the cross-
examination, she elaborated that the accused used to misbehave with her
after taking liquor. He used to peep through the gap between the floor and
the door of the bath-room. Material facts deposed by the prosecutrix in
her examination-in-chef remain unchallenged. Despite lengthy cross-
examination, no infirmities could be elicited. No extraneous motive was
assigned to the child witness to falsely implicate her own father; the bread
earner of the family. No sound reasons exist to disbelieve the prosecutrix.
She is consistent throughout. True, certain additional facts have been
spoken by the prosecutrix in her Court statement which do not find
mention in her earlier statements before the police/court. However, these
are inconsequential as the crux remains that 'X' was molested by the
accused for the last about three years. In fact, in her Court statement, 'X'
has elaborated as to how and in what various ways, she was being abused
by her father.
5. PW-1 (Reena Devi), 'X's mother has corroborated her
version in its entirety. Their statements are not at variance. Nothing was
suggested to her in the cross-examination if she nurtured any ill-will
against her husband on any issue.
6. For the first time in 313 statement, the accused claimed his
false implication by the prosecutrix at behest of her mother as there was a
property dispute about sale of a plot at Burari. However, nothing has
surfaced if the accused had a plot at Burari or it was sold by the victim's
mother without his consent and permission. No such suggestion was
given to 'X' or her mother in the cross-examination. Moreover, for
money dispute 'X' and her mother are not imagined to level such serious
allegations of molestation against the appellant to have reflection on 'X's
chastity. In 313 statement, the appellant made feeble attempt to blame 'X'
alleging she had objectionable relations with a boy and when he objected
to it, he was implicated in the case. Again, the accused did not elaborate
as to who was the 'boy' with whom 'X' had objectionable relations and if
he had ever seen both of them together at any place. Nothing was
suggested to 'X' in her cross examination about it. The defence deserves
outright rejection.
7. The impugned order based upon fair and proper appreciation
of the evidence, needs no intervention. The conviction is upheld. The
appellant does not deserve leniency as being father he even did not spare
his minor daughter.
8. The appeal lacks merits and is dismissed. Trial Court record
(if any) be sent back along with the copy of this order. Copy of this order
be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 24, 2015
sa
