High Court of Delhi was dealing with petition filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment on conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge arising out of FIR registered under Sections 354/509 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
Brief Facts:
In this case the child victim was residing with her parents in a rented premises. Her father was a rickshaw puller and her mother used to work as a cook in domestic households. Her mother used to leave the house in the morning and she used to reside with her brothers and sisters. One man used to come and stand outside her house and used to open the zip of his pants and show her his private part. He even used to show currency notes to her and used to ask her to sit on his bicycle. She used to immediately close her door. One day the child victim saw the accused sitting in a bhandara which was being held in the street outside her house. She went and told about the previous acts of the accused to her mother. Her mother caught hold of the collar of the accused and her father also reached the spot. Police was called. Her statement was recorded and FIR was registered against the accused under Section 354/509 IPC r/w Section 8 POCSO Act. Accused was arrested and after thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Statement of the child victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which she completely corroborated her first complaint and also stated that the accused also used to harass her friend ‘N’.
Appellant’s Contention:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. While the child victim had stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that her friend ‘N’ was also harassed, no such fact was mentioned at the time of recording of her testimony before the Court.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the child victim had correctly identified the appellant as the person who committed the offence. It was also submitted that the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses are minor and non-fatal to the prosecution case.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that the child victim correctly identified the appellant in the Court as the person who had committed the offence. Court observed that in the appellant’s statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case and stated that he was falsely implicated. The appellant denied that he ever sexually harassed the child victim or showed his private part to her. It was stated that he was working as a labour and had gone to the aforesaid bhandara to have food. However, he was falsely implicated on the basis of wrong identification by the child victim and her mother. Court stated that insofar as the sufficiency of the statement of child victim in convicting an accused is concerned, it has been repeatedly held that if the testimony of the child victim inspires confidence and is reliable, it is sufficient to record the conviction.
HC relied upon the case of Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and Others v. State of Maharashtra where SC held that “conviction on the sole evidence of the child witness is permissible, if the witness is found competent and the testimony is trustworthy.” Court stated that in cases involving testimony of a child witness, a note of caution has been sounded time and again to the effect that the testimony has to be evaluated more carefully.
HC relied upon the case of Ranjeet Kumar Ram @ Ranjeet Kumar Das v. State of Bihar where SC observed that “Evidence of the child witness and its credibility would depend upon the circumstances of each case. Only precaution which the court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one.”
Court noted that in the present case the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are fraught with inconsistencies. Court stated that there are contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on various aspects, including as to how and when the child victim had informed her mother about the acts of the appellant, as well as regarding apprehension of the appellant. It is also the admitted case of the prosecution that the appellant had not committed any wrong act or involved himself in an improper behaviour on the day of bhandara.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the deficiencies noted above cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case and the appellant’s involvement is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.”
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Case Title: Ravinder v. State
Case Details: CRL.A. 552/2020
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
