Delhi High Court
Sanjay @ Sanjeet vs State on 20 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 20th August, 2018
+ CRL.A. 1112/2017
SANJAY @ SANJEET ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Nitin Joshi, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP
for State with SI Pankaj
Kumar, PS Vasant Kunj, South.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.A. 1112/2017
1. By the present appeal the appellant challenges the conviction under
Section 354D IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act (in short 'POCSO Act') and the order on sentence directing
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of ₹7,000/-; in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month.
2. The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of the father of
the victim girl aged ten years. Father of the victim girl who appeared in the
witness box as PW-1 in the FIR stated that his daughter was studying in 6th
standard and on 30th August, 2014 when his daughter came back from the
school she told his wife that one person namely Sanjay who stays in a
Jhuggi at Izrail Camp near their house keeps on following her while she is
going or coming back from the school. The daughter also stated that he tried
to talk to her and keeps insisting even on her refusal. On the mother of the
victim narrating this incident to the father, the victim was taken to the
Jhuggi of the appellant by her father where she pointed towards the
appellant identifying him as the boy who followed her and tried to talk to
her despite her refusal. Thus a call at 100 number was made. Police arrived
at the spot and arrested Sanjay.
3. During the course of trial as noted above, father of the girl was
examined as PW-1, mother as PW-2 and the victim as PW-3. In her
testimony before the Court the victim deposed that she along with her friend
used to go to the school on foot and that her friend had not been
accompanying her for the last three-four days. Thus the appellant used to
follow her and tried to talk to her despite her refusal. In her cross-
examination the victim clarified that the appellant had been following her
for the past three-four days when her friend was not accompanying her.
Though in her statement mother of the victim deposed that the appellant not
only stalked her daughter but also touched her however, in view of the
statement of the victim, the same is obviously an improvement and required
to be discarded.
4. During the course of trial the age of the prosecutrix was not disputed
due to her school record however, the appellant took the plea that he was a
juvenile and thus he was produced before the medical board. Dr. Rohini
(PW-5) who appeared in the witness box stated that the estimated bone age
of the appellant was 20-22 years and exhibited the report of the medical
board as Ex.PW-5/A and radiology report as Ex.PW-5/B. In his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant took the plea that the families were
living in the neighbourhood and there used to be constant quarrel, thus he
has been implicated in this case. Appellant produced his cousin as DW-1,
who stated that on 31st August, 2014 at about 8.30 PM her neighbour along
with police came to her house and arrested the appellant. She further stated
that father of the victim used to illegally supply electricity and take a sum of
₹1,000/- per month from innocent persons. Since DW-1 refused to pay the
money to the father of the victim on the said day, he falsely implicated her
cousin.
5. However, the defence plea that PW-1 used to illegally supply
electricity and extort money was not put to him in cross-examination and the
suggestion given was that being neighbours there used to be disputes
between the parents of the appellant and PW-1 on water and electricity, thus
the appellant has been falsely implicated.
6. Considering the testimony of the victim which is consistent in nature
this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment convicting the appellant
for offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act read with
Section 354D IPC however, considering the fact that no overt act except that
the appellant wanted to talk to her which she refused and the same happened
only for the three/four days when the victim's friend was not accompanying
her this Court deems it fit to modify the sentence awarded to him. Appellant
has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years. As per the nominal roll the appellant has undergone nearly one year
seven months of imprisonment including remissions. Hence sentence of the
appellant is modified to the period already undergone.
7. Appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail,
who will release the appellant forthwith, if not required in any other case.
9. Trial court record be sent back.
Crl. M.B. No. 2152/2017 (suspension of sentence)
Application is dismissed as infructuous.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 21, 2018
'vn'
