Delhi High Court
Ram Lal vs State on 7 October, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 6th OCTOBER, 2016
DECIDED ON : 7th OCTOBER, 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 439/2016, CRL.M.B.1195/2016 & CRL.M.A.No.
9919/2016
RAM LAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Jyoti Gupta, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Kamal K.Ghei, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to
challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 04.06.2016 of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.03/2015 arising out of FIR
No.11/2008 PS Ashok Nagar whereby findings of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate regarding conviction under Sections 342/354/363 IPC were
endorsed.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-
sheet was that on 10.01.2008 at 11.00 a.m. at C-Block, Masjid Wali Gali,
New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, the petitioner kidnapped the prosecutrix 'X'
(changed name) and outraged her modesty in his house after wrongfully
confining her. Incident was reported to the police vide Daily Diary (DD)
No.13A (Ex.PW-1/B) at 10.44 a.m. at PS New Ashok Nagar. The
Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement lodged First
Information Report. 'X' was medically examined. The petitioner was
arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. To
establish its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C.
statement, the petitioner denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded
false implication. He examined DW-1 (Munna Lal) in defence. The trial
resulted in conviction as aforesaid. The Appellate Court while maintaining
conviction, modified the sentence from RI for one year to SI for six months.
3. The occurrence took place on 10.01.2008 at about 11.00 a.m.
and its intimation was conveyed to the police without any delay vide DD
No.13A (Ex.PW-1/B) at 10.44 a.m. It was recorded therein that an
'individual' had outraged the modesty of a child aged around seven years.
In her statement (Ex.PW-2/A), 'X' gave graphic detail and named the
petitioner to have outraged her modesty. In her Court statement, she proved
the version given to the police without any major variation. She deposed
that on that day, the accused, who used to sell 'peanuts' and 'gajjak' on a
'rehri', took her to his house when she was on her way to her residence. The
accused asked her to put off her clothes to see if she was a 'boy' or a 'girl';
he kissed on her cheek and asked her to hold his penis in her hands. In the
cross-examination, she disclosed that at that time, she used to study in MC
Primary School, New Ashok Nagar. She denied that the statement given by
her was at her mother's behest. She denied if her mother used to purchase
eatables like gajjak, peanuts on credit from the petitioner and in order to
avoid its payment, falsely implicated him in this case.
4. Scanning the testimony of the prosecutrix, it reveals that despite
detailed cross-examination nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve
the version narrated by the child witness aged around seven years. At the
time of her examination, she was aged around twelve years but was able to
recollect the entire occurrence vividly. She assigned a specific and definite
role to the accused in the crime and identified him to be the perpetrator of
the crime. No ulterior motive was assigned to the child for making a false
statement against the individual aged around sixty years and with whom she
had no prior ill-will or animosity. The defence that X's mother had
purchased certain eatables on credit and was unable to return the amount and
was falsely implicated to avoid payment is devoid of merits. For such a
trivial issue, mother is not expected to put the honour of her tiny child at
stake. The petitioner also did not produce on record any evidence to show if
any particular item was purchased by victim's mother, and if so, when and
for what price. No documentary evidence has emerged on record in this
regard. The petitioner who himself was a petty vendor is not expected to
sell articles on huge credit.
5. PW-5 (Amina Khatoon @ Amina Begum) - victim's mother
has corroborated her version in its entirety. The Courts below have given
cogent findings of guilt which are based upon fair appreciation of the
evidence and warrant no intervention.
6. The Trial Court had awarded RI for one year and it was
modified to six months by the Appellate Court. Since the petitioner was
aged around sixty years and was mature enough to understand the
consequences of his act, he deserves no further leniency. The victim was
aged around seven years akin to his daughter.
7. The revision petition lacks in merits and is dismissed. Pending
applications also stand disposed of.
8. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
order.
9. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for
information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 07, 2016 / tr
