Delhi District CourtUnknown vs . on 13 September, 20171

    In the court of Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, Addl. Sessions Judge­1
       cum Presiding Officer of Special Court underPOCSO Act,
                (East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.


                                                                  FIR NO.­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­76/14
                                                                  PS­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Gandhi Nagar
                                                                 U/S­­­­­­­­­­­376/506IPC& 
                                                                              4 ofPOCSO ActSTATE 


                                          VS.
                                            

                                       RAKESH

                                   (SC­ 70/2014)
                                    ***************


JUDGMENT:­
             Record shows that accused is in custody since the date of his
arrest i.e.  31­1­2014. He was granted  bail and even conditions of bail
were   also   relaxed   but   no   bail   bond   was   furnished.   The   case   of   the
accused was conducted initially by Amicus  Curie but thereafter at his
request, another counsel from legal aid was provided to him.On   the   basis   of   the   prosecution   allegations,   the   charge   for
offences undersection 376/511and506IPC as well assection 10of the
POCSO   Act   was   framed   vide   order   dated   5­5­2014.   However   after2conclusion   of   prosecution   evidence   and   receipt   of   FSL   report,   on   the
basis of an application of the prosecution undersection 216Cr.P.C. and
in view of 'no objection' given by the accused, the charge was amended
and   converted   into   undersection   376,506IPC   andsection   6of   the
POCSO Act. Accused did not opt to recall any witness already examined
even after amendment of the charge and instead pleaded not guilty to the
same.PROSECUTION ALLEGATIONS:­ 
              FIR was lodged on 30­1­2014 at 11.45 p.m. by Smt. Shabana
Begum,   mother   of   the   victim   (a   girl   child   aged   about   8   years   whose
identity is not disclosed herewith) with allegations that on 30­1­2014 at
about 5 p.m. victim had gone out of house for playing and she came back
at about 5.30 p.m. in weeping and feared condition. On inquiry, victim
disclosed that accused Rakesh @ Chhole uncle took her to Jhuggi and
removed   her   'Pajami'.   Thereafter  he   started   doing   'Chedchad'   with   her
vagina (Peshab Wali Jagah).  Complainant Smt. Shabana Begum found
that cloths of victim were wet. She along with victim went to Jhuggi of
accused but on seeing them, he ran away from there. Complainant then
called the police at 100 number. Police took victim, complainant and her
husband   Sultan   to   SDN   hospital   where   medical   examination   of   the
victim took place.IO SI Pooja Pandey on receipt of PCR call vide DD no. 32A
firstly   reached   at   the   spot   of   occurrence   i.e.   Peeli   Mitti   Jhuggi,   near
Sayyed Tosir Ali Mazar, Chandra Puri, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and then to
SDN   hospital.   She   collected   MLC   and   sealed   exhibits   of   the   victim.3Mother of the victim gave statement to the IO who got the FIR lodged.
Thereafter IO along with victim and her parents came at the spot and
prepared site plan and arrested the accused at the instance of the father
of the victim. Accused was sent to hospital for medical examination and
his exhibits were seized. At the spot of incident, semen sample were also
collected from the cot upon which sexual assault took place. Statement
of the victim was got recorded from MM concerned on 1­2­2014 under
sectionu/s 164Cr.P.C. The exhibits of both victim and accused were
sent   to   FSL   and   date   of   birth   proof   of   the   victim   was   collected.   After
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court. However,
due   to   not   pleading   guilty   by   accused   person,   trial   started.   During
pendency of the case, FSL result was also received.EVIDENCE LED:­ 
              Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total following
13 witnesses.Sr.         Name of                    What the witness proved
       no.       the witness
      PW­1       Mohd.       He   is   the   father   of   the   victim   at   whose
                 Sultan             instance   IO   allegedly   prepared   site   plan
                                    and arrested the accused vide arrest memo
                                    Ex.   PW1/A   and   his   personal   search   was
                                    conducted   vide   Ex.   PW1/B.   Lateron   he
                                    also handed over copy of birth certificate of
                                    the   victim   to   IO   which   was   seized   vide4memo Ex. PW1/C. 
PW­2    Smt.            She   is   the   mother   of   the   victim   and
        Shabana         complainant   as   on   her   complaint   Ex.
        Begum           PW2/A, FIR was registered.
PW­3    Victim          She   proved   how   and   in   which   manner(identity   is incident of rape, criminal intimidation etc.
        concealed)   took place with her.PW­4    High   Court He   being   posted   as   MHCM   in   the   police
        Surender        station   deposited   sealed   pullanda
                        containing exhibits of victim and accused
                        in   Malkhana   respectively   on   30­1­2014
                        and 31­1­2014 and sent to FSL on 17­2­
                        2014 at the instance of the IO vide entries
                     in the relevant registers Ex. PW4/A to C.
PW­5    High   Court He was working as duty officer and simply
        Gajender        recorded formal FIR Ex. PW5/A on receipt
                        of rukka  from IO and  made endorsement
                        Ex. PW5/B on the complaint.PW­6    SI Munesh       She   partly   investigated   the   case   and
                        produced the victim before MM concerned
                        for   recording   her   statement   u/s   164Cr.P.C. She also took into possession the
                        photocopy of date of birth certificate of the
                        victim   from   her   father   as   well   as   also
                        collected the same from school concerned
                        vide memo Ex. PW6/A in which the victim
                        was   studying.   The   exhibits   of   victim   and5accused   were   also   sent   to   FSL   at   her
                       directions by MHCM.PW­7    Dr. Neelam     She proved MLC of the victim Ex. PW7/A
                       and handed over the exhibits of the victim
                      to police.PW­8    SI       C.P. He on receipt of PCR call had reached at
        Singh          the   spot   of   incident   and   took   victim   to
                       hospital   for   medical   examination   and
                       thereafter handed over investigation to IO
                     SI Pooja Pandey.PW­9    Ct.   Vishnu He was  posted as duty constable in SDN
        Kumar          hospital   and   collected   exhibits   of   victim
                       and   accused   from   the   doctors   concerned
                       and   handed   over   to   IO   SI   Pooja   Pandey
                   vide Ex. PW9/A and B.
PW­10 Ct. Praveena She along with SI C.P. Singh had reached
                       the   house   of   the   victim   and   thereafter
                       accompanied the victim and her parents to
                       hospital. She also took rukka prepared by
                       SI   Pooja   Pandey   to   police   station   for
                       getting the case registered and then came
                       back to spot with copy of FIR and original
                  rukka and handed over to the IO.PW­11 ASI   Manoj He   had   reached   at   the   spot   along   with
        Kumar          crime   team   and   took   photographs   Ex.PW11/A1   to   A6   and   also   produced
                       negatives   of   the   same   Ex.   PW11/A7   to6A12.PW­12 Sh.   Naresh He   being   Sr.   Scientific   Officer   cum
                 Kumar             Chemical Examiner proved FSL report and
                                   DNA   profile   reports   Ex.   PW12/A   and
                                PW12/B.
      PW­13 SI            Pooja She   is   the   main   IO   and   proved   various
                 Pandey            aspects of her investigation.It is important to mention here that accused admitted his MLC Ex. PA1
and   school   record   of   the   victim   Ex.   PA2   by   giving   statement   u/s   294
Cr.P.C.STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C. & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:­ 
              Accused in response to various questions put to him in his
statement   u/s   313Cr.P.C.   avoided   to   give   any   answer   and   showed
ignorance by saying that he does not know. However, he also stated that
mother of the victim had run away from her house with one Nasir living
in   the   same   street   and   accused   along   with   her   husband   had   gone   to
search   her.   It   is   also   stated   that   mother   of   the   victim   was   found   in
Nizamuddin area but Nasir could not be traced out. Accused had asked
the mother of the victim to mend her ways but she threatened him to
involve in a false case, which he would remember for whole life. Accused
also stated that after 2­3 months of this incident, father of the victim had
shoot Nasir. Accused again asked the mother of the victim not to have
any contact with Nasir but she involved him in this false case. According
to   the   accused,   victim   had   also   given   false   statement   before   MM
concerned   and   even   this   fact   is   noted   by   that   MM   while   recording7statement   u/s   164Cr.P.C.   However,   accused   did   not   opt   to   lead   any
evidence in defence.REASONS FOR DECISION:­ 
             I have heard Addl. PP for state and counsel for the accused
and   gone   through   the   record.   Following   points   have   arisen   during
arguments;(a)  There   is   no   dispute   about   age   of   the   victim:­  Victim   was   aged
   about 8 years when the incident took place. No dispute about the age
   of   the   victim   was   raised   during   trial   on   behalf   of   accused.   Due   to
   admission   of   the   accused   made   in   statement   undersection   294Cr.P.C. regarding birth record Ex. PA2, it is established on record that
   minor   victim   was   just   8   years   of   age   at   the   time   of   incident.
   Accordingly,   she   comes   within   definition   of   'child'   as   defined   under
   provisions ofPOCSO Act.(b) Accused is a potent person:­ After arrest, the accused was medically
   examined   from   the   hospital   to   know   about   his   potency.   Accused
   admitted   his   own   MLC   Ex.   PA1   in   his   statement   u/s   294Cr.P.C.
   which   says   that   he   was   capable   to   perform   sexual   intercourse   and
   was   not   impotent   person.   There   is   reference   of   collection   of   blood
   sample of the accused in this MLC which fact is even not disputed at
   argument stage.8(c)  MLC   of   the   victim   does   not   fully   support   the   prosecution
   version:­  PW­7 Dr. Neelam had medically examined the victim in the
   hospital and she proved her MLC Ex. PW7/A dated 30­1­2014 with
   alleged history of attempt of sexual assault. Victim was however not
   able to give any history of incident but the same was reported by her
   father,   though   victim   was   found   well   oriented   to   time,   place   and
   person at the time of examination according to the contents of this
   MLC.MLC shows that victim was brought in the hospital at 8 p.m.
   After examination, it was found by PW­7 that there was no evidence of
   any external injury/bruise. No bleeding or tear seen and hymen of the
   victim   was   found   intact.   Vulval   area   and   rectal   area   were   found
   normal.   This   doctor   prepared   various   exhibits   of   the   victim   and
   handed over to the police after sealing at 11 p.m. 
             It is argued on behalf of the accused that numbers of above
   facts mentioned in the MLC are going in favour of the accused and
   rule   out   any   penetration/rape   as   well   as   any   force   used   upon   the
   victim   while   committing   alleged   sexual   assault.   According   to   the
   counsel, had there been any rape, then hymen of minor girl must have
   been torned and there must have been swelling or injury marks on the
   vaginal   area   because   the   medical   examination   was   done   within   3
   hours   of   the   alleged   incident.   These   submissions   however,   shall   be
   considered along with other evidence lateron.(d) FSL report confirms penetrative sexual assault/rape:­ IO PW­13 SI
   Pooja Pandey stated that she had also lifted semen stains found on
   the   cot  upon  which   sexual  assault  was  committed   with   the  help   of9cotton and even piece of Nylon Strips (Niwar) of the cot was cut and
sealed   after   putting   in   plastic   container   vide   seizure   memo   Ex.   PW
13/A.   After   medical   examination   of   the   accused   vide   MLC   Ex.   PA1
(which accused already admitted in his statement undersection 294Cr.P.C.), his exhibits including blood sample were seized vide memo
Ex. PW9/B. These exhibits of the victim and accused were deposited
by IO in the malkhana of the police station on 30­1­2014 and 31­1­
2014   respectively   and   lateron   sent   to   FSL   on   17­2­2014   for
comparison as proved by PW­4. Nothing has come on record from the
cross   examination   of   PW­4   or   PW­13   that   those   exhibits   were
tempered with at any stage.PW­12 proved FSL report and DNA profile comparison report
Ex. 12/A and B. This report clearly says that exhibits were received in
duly sealed condition. According to this witness, DNA generated from
vaginal   secretion   of   the   victim,   her  Pajami   and   semen   stains   found
from the Niwar (cloth piece) of the cot at the spot was found matching
with the DNA generated from the blood sample of the accused. Semen
traces   detected   from  the  vaginal  secretion  of  the   victim,   her  Pajami
and Niwar of the cot found belonging to the accused. Thus, this FSL
and DNA reports clearly indicates that victim was sexually assaulted
by   the   accused   and   during  that   process,   his   semen   was   ejaculated
from his penis which had fallen not only in the vaginal portion of the
victim,   on   her   'Pajami'   but   also   on   the   cot   upon   which   the   sexual
assault was committed. Accordingly, it can be said that FSL and DNA
report   Ex.   PW12/A   and   B   fully   support   the   prosecution   case   and
proved that penetrative sexual assault had taken place.10(e)  Defence   plea   improbable   and   unacceptable:­  According   to   the
  accused in his statementu/s 313Cr.P.C., mother of the victim i.e.
  PW­2 was having some relationships with one Nasir with whom she
  had also run away. Accused and her husband i.e. PW­1 had traced
  her from Nizamudin area and accused had asked PW­2 to mend her
  ways due to which she threatened to implicate him in a false case. It
  is also stated that father of the victim also shoot that Nasir. However,
  no evidence is brought on record in this regard. Accused in order to
  prove this defence story neither examined himself nor any witness or
  any police record. If PW­1 had shoot the Nasir, then there must have
  been some police report but no such report was produced and instead
  accused opted not to lead any defence evidence. Even the story as now
  alleged   in   statement   u/s   313Cr.P.C.   was   not   exactly   put   to   any
  witness in his/her cross examination.PW­1 in his cross examination totally denied that Nasir used
  to come to his house in order to meet his wife and both had run away
  once. PW­1 also denied the suggestion given in cross examination that
  his   wife   used   to   talk   with   Nasir   on   phone   and   used   to   meet   him.
  Suggestion   was   given   to   PW­1   that   few   days   prior   to   the   date   of
  incident, a quarrel had taken place between his wife and Nasir and
  accused being the friend of Nasir intervened and told her that she has
  children and should not have relations with Nasir due to this reason
  she   got   annoyed   and   falsely   implicated   the   accused   in   this   case.
  Similarly, PW­2 also denied having run away with Nasir though she
  simply admitted that he was known to her. She also denied meeting
  him or remaining in contact with him through phone. She also denied11taking any financial help from Nasir or had quarreled with him and
  accused   being   friend   of   the   Nasir   intervened   and   she   due   to
  annoyance threatened him to falsely implicate in a case. Accused by
  putting   these   vague   defence   plea   suggestions   which   are   specifically
  denied failed to prove the same. Neither any witness was examined in
  defence   nor   any   details   were   given   when,   where   and   in   whose
  presence,   alleged   threats   of   false   implication   were   given   by   PW­2.
  Thus, accused had raised defence plea which is not acceptable and
  even   plausible   to   show   that   there   existed   any   chance   of   false
  implication, so the same is hereby rejected.(f) Arrest of the accused in presence of PW­1:­ Accused has not denied
  his arrest by the police from his own house in the presence of PW­1
  who specifically stated that he was present at the time of arrest and in
  his   presence   arrest   memo   of   the   accused   Ex.   PW1/A  was   prepared
  and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/B. No doubt,
  no other public witness was joined by the IO at the time of arrest of
  the accused but that will not make the arrest as illegal firstly because
  normally   public   persons   avoids   to   join   the   police   proceedings   and
  secondly   the   arrest   took   place   in   the   midnight   at   about   1   a.m.,   so
  chances   of   availability   of   public   persons   almost   becomes   nil.   Delhi
  High Court inGhanshyam @ Raju vs. State241 (2017) DLT 552
  held   that   public   witnesses/   persons   are   generally   reluctant   to   join
  police proceedings and court cannot ignore this handicap with which
  investigating   agency   has   to   discharge   its   duties.   In   such   situation,12non joining of any public witness does not invalidate the arrest of the
   accused.(g)  Evidence   of   PW­2   mother   of   the   victim   is   not   a   hearsay
   evidence:­ PW­2 is the mother of the victim to whom victim just after
   the incident told while weeping and in scared position that accused
   had committed wrong act with her. PW­2 was told by the victim that
   accused had taken her to a Jhuggi and there he removed her panty
   and touched her vagina. PW­2 also noticed that the front portion of
   her salwar was wet and having stains, so she called the PCR which
   took the victim to hospital. Victim had told her mother some acts of
   the accused in details regarding sexual assault. This statement of the
   mother   of   the   victim   cannot   be   treated   as   simple   hearsay   evidence
   especially when no cross examination on the same was done. It is the
   first version of incident which the victim narrated to her mother just
   after the incident within a period of ½ hour of commission of offence
   and thus is a relevant fact forming part of the same transaction being
   admissible   undersection   6of   the   Evidence   Act.   Accordingly,   the
   testimony of PW­2 cannot be rejected being an inadmissible fact and
   somehow support the prosecution case.(h)  Statement   of   minor   victim   is   reliable   and   trustworthy:­  The
   statement   of   the   victim   was   also   recorded   by   MM   concerned   undersection 164Cr.P.C. In this statement Ex. PW3/A, victim stated that
   on one day, she was playing with other children at some distance from
   her house, then accused Chhole came there who was being called as13'Chacha' by her. On the pretext of giving some thing to her, accused
took   her   to   a   Jhuggi   where   no   other   person   was   present.   Accused
made the victim lied upon the cot and opened his pant. He opened the
chain of his own pant and then removed the 'Pajami' of the victim. He
then   threatened   the   victim   to   kill   if   she   told   anything   to   anyone.
Victim  stated  that  she  was  feeling big  fear  at  that  time.  Thereafter,
accused   started   touching   his   penis   with   her   vagina   and   laid   down
with her on the cot (Uske Baad Wo Apni Susu Wali Cheej Ko Mere
Susu Karne Ki Jagah Par Lagane Laga. Woh Mere Saath Khat Par Leat
Gaya). Victim also disclosed that after some time, accused asked her
to wear her 'Pajami' which she herself wore. Thereafter, accused left
the   Jhuggi   by  leaving  her  there.   Due   to   fear   she   did   not   go   to   her
house and sat on a vehicle. After some time, her brother came to call
her, then she went to her house and told about the incident to her
mother. Her mother opened her 'Pajami' and saw. Thereafter she told
about it to her father who thereafter asked her to call the police.The   above   statement   of   the   victim   Ex.   PW3/A   was   got
recorded undersection 164Cr.P.C. from the Metropolitan Magistrate
concerned   by   the   police   but   that   MM   is   not   summoned   by   the
prosecution   to   prove   the  fact  of   recording it.   However,  statement  of
victimu/s 164Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate in
discharge of his official duties under law, so the same can be taken
into consideration even without its formal proof by the concerned MM.
Otherwise   also   victim   PW­3   in   her   deposition   stated   that   she   was
produced in the court earlier and she told everything to Judge Sahib.
Thus, this statement has to be read in evidence especially when no14cross examination  was done on the same. Moreover, this statementu/s 164Cr.P.C. can be treated as a part of the judicial proceedings
performed by the judicial officer so is per­se admissible in evidence.
Hence,   no   benefit   can   be   given   to   the   accused   merely   due   to   non
examination   of   the   MM   concerned   in   the   court.   Accordingly,   this
statement Ex. PW3/A has to be read for purpose of corroboration and
contradiction purposes.The statement of the victim was recorded in court as PW­3.
Before   recording   her   statement,   the   court   made   inquiry   by   putting
various questions to her and then came to the conclusion that she is a
competent witness and her statement can be recorded without oath.
At   that   time,   the   age   of   the   victim   was   just   8   years.   Most   of   the
evidence of the victim was recorded in question answer form.Victim PW­3 identified the accused in the court. She deposed
that   on   one   day,   she   was   playing   with   her   friends   outside   of   her
house. Accused told her that he will give her something to  eat and
took   her   in   a   Jhuggi.   Thereafter,   he   removed   her   underwear   and
touched his 'Susu Wali Jagah'  with  her 'Susu Wali  Jagah'. She felt
pain and started crying. Thereafter, accused went beneath the bridge
and she reached home crying. On being asked by her mother, she told
everything to her who made a call at 100 number. Police took her and
her   father   to   police   station.   From   there   she   was   taken   to   hospital.
After medical examination, they returned to police station. Her mother
also reached there. From there they returned back to house. Victim
also stated that she was produced in the court earlier and she told
everything to Judge Sahib.15With   the   permission   of   the   court,   Addl.   PP   was   allowed   to
cross   examine   the   victim   on   some   points.   Thereafter,   victim   also
stated   that   accused   is   also   known   as   Chhole   and   she   call   him
'Chacha'. She also stated that she told the Aunty (i.e. Women Judge
who recorded statementu/s 164Cr.P.C.) that accused made her lie
down on a cot, started opening his pant, opened jip of his pant and
removed her 'Pajami'. She also stated that she told Aunty that accused
threatened to kill her if she told about it to anyone. She also stated
that she was scared and thereafter he started touching his 'Susu Wali
Cheej' at her 'Susu'. Victim also admitted in cross examination done
by Addl. PP that accused also lie down with her and after sometimes,
asked her to wear her 'Pajami'. Thereafter she herself wore the 'Pajami'
and Chhole left her alone in the Jhuggi and went away and she being
scared did not go to her house. However, she denied the fact that she
told the MM concerned that she sat on a vehicle and when her brother
came there to call her, then she went with him to the house. She also
stated that her mother had also checked her 'Pajami'.Counsel for the accused relied upon case lawSamay Singh
vs.   State1998   (1)   JCC   (Delhi)   217  in   which   it   is   held   that   child
witness   is   prone   to   tutoring,   hence   the   court   should   look   to
corroboration   particularly   when   the   evidence   betrays   traces   of
tutoring. In this case, victim was 6 years of age who was raped. Court
found   that   victim   was   tutored   by   her   parents   to   speak   against   the
accused   for   committing   offence.   In   cross   examination   she   revealed
quite contradictory facts to her examination in chief. Medical evidence
favours the accused showing no act of rape or any kind of injury to16her private parts. There was an old enmity also between accused and
parents of the victim.Accused in his statementu/s 313Cr.P.C. alleged that victim
was telling lie and in this regard, MM concerned also gave observation
while recording her statementu/s 164Cr.P.C. but I did not find any
such observation on record. In this regard, plea taken by the accused
is totally incorrect and false.During cross examination of victim PW­3, following answers
also came on record which were specifically pointed out by counsel in
order   to   show   that   victim   was   tutored   to   speak   lie   in   a   particular
manner;Q­ If your mother had told you what you have to say here?
   A­ Yes.Court Question­ What your mother told you?A­ My mother told me to tell whatever had happened with me.Q­ You have told whatever was told by your mother to you?
   A­ Witness nodded her head in affirmative.Q­   Even   when   you   were   produced   before   Aunty   (i.e.   MM
   concerned) earlier your mother told you what you have to say
   to Aunty?A­Yes17Q­ What was told to you by your mother?A­ My mother told me to tell whatever had happened with me.Q­You have told today and earlier before the  Aunty (i.e. MM
   concerned) whatever was told to you by your mother?
   A­ Witness nodded her head in affirmative.However,   victim   specifically   denied   the   suggestions   given   in   cross
examination on behalf of the accused that accused had not taken her
anywhere, had not done anything with her and she was telling lie on
the instance of her mother. If the entire evidence of the victim is taken
into consideration, then it can be said that she was not tutored by her
mother to depose in a particular manner. She might have been asked
by the mother to tell the court but apparently was told only to speak
whatever had happened with her. If the above mentioned answers of
the victim are taken into consideration in totality, then the possibility
of any tutoring is ruled out. Moreover, no question was asked from the
victim in cross examination what particular fact has been tutored by
her mother which was to be deposed.Furthermore,   testimony   of   the   victim   cannot   be   disbelieved
who had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. Delhi High Court
in   caseHunny   vs.   State241   (2017)   DLT   346  relied   upon   the
testimony of the victim who was aged about 5 years only and upheld
the conviction. The way in which manner the victim deposed in the
present case rule out any possibility of any tutoring.18Counsel for the accused pointed out discrepancies in the MLC
of the  victim Ex.  PW7/A and  FSL­DNA reports  Ex.  PW12/A and  B.
Even if the hymen of the victim was found not torned as per MLC but
semen traces of accused were detected from vaginal wash and Salwar
of the victim and also on the Nawar of cot. Victim specifically stated
that she felt pain and started crying when the accused had removed
her underwear and touched his penis with her vagina. From the above
evidence and testimony of the victim, the only conclusion thus can be
that as and when the accused started doing penetration, then at that
time,   he   discharged   his   semen   and  there   was   no   full and   complete
penetration. Due to incomplete penetration, hymen of the victim was
not torned though the process of penetration had already started. Law
does   not   prescribe   anywhere   that   particular   degree   of   penetration
should   be   proved   before   constituting   offence   of   rape.   In   present
situation,   the   offence   of   rape/penetrative   sexual   assault   is   fully
established. No benefit can be given to the accused in such situation
that there was no injury on the viginal area of the victim or hymen
was   not   torned.   The   MLC   of   the   victim   has   to   be   taken   into
consideration along with  oral testimony of the victim read with FSL
report.After going through the statement of the victim, I am of the
view   that   nothing   material   has   come   on   record   from   her   cross
examination   to   hold   that   she   is   either   tutored   witness   or   is   not
correctly   deposing.   There   was   no   motive   on   her   part   to   falsely
implicate the accused.19Simple   fact   that   family   members   of   the   victim   PW­3   had
accompanied   with   the   victim   to   court   at   the   time   of   recording
statement   u/s   164Cr.P.C.   does   not   mean   that   victim   was   tutored
even at that time. Since, the victim was minor child of 8 years of age,
so it was natural that her parents accompanied her to court as she
alone could not go anywhere. After going through the testimony of the
victim, I am of the view that testimony of the child victim is natural
and trustworthy.Delhi High Court in caseTasleem vs. State2011 (2) JCC
846  held   that   conviction   can   be   sustained   on   the   evidence   of   the
prosecutrix alone and same does not require corroboration in all cases
because it is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix
must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence
on record. It is the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix which is
material.   If   the   evidence   is   found   to   be   free   from   blemish   and
implicitly   reliable,   the   conviction   can   be   recorded   even   on   her   sole
testimony.Delhi High Court in  Ravi @ Bire vs. State Crl. Appeal no.
227/2017   decided   on   16­8­2017  held   that   in   a   case   of   rape   or
sexual assault on child of tender age, her testimony does not require
any corroboration if otherwise it is inspiring confidence.                If   para   no.
14   of   this   case   is   taken   into   consideration   and   is   applied   in   the
present situation, then possibility of false implication of the accused
does not survive. High Court held in this paragraph that "otherwise
also, the child victim who was 9 years 3 months and 21 days at that20time, would not have deposed against the appellant had she not been
  sexually abused by him. She had hardly any motive to implicate him
  in such a serious offence wherein she herself had suffered mentally
  and physically".Accordingly, after  going through the entire testimony of  the
  victim, it is held that there is no ground to disbelieve her regarding
  committing of penetrative sexual offence against her. The FSL report
  and the previous statement given to MM concerned undersection 164Cr.P.C.  corroborate  her version.  The testimony of  the victim can be
  accepted as correct in order to sustain conviction of accused.(i) Contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of witnesses:­
  During   arguments,   few   contradictions   and   inconsistencies   in   the
  statement   of   some   witnesses   was   pointed   out   by   counsel   for   the
  accused but in my view the same are minor and immaterial in nature
  which does not effect the merits of the case. Otherwise also, normally
  these inconsistencies are likely to happen due to passage of time and
  fading   of   memory.   Accordingly,   these   are   liable   to   be   ignored   and
  cannot   became   base   to   reject   the   testimony   of   inspiring   witnesses
  including   the   victim.In   this   regard,   reliance   can   be   placed   uponGhanshyam   @   Raju   vs.   State241   (2017)   DLT  552.  Even   if   it   is
  presumed that IO somehow tried to manipulate the small part of the
  investigation, then that will not affect the prosecution case as a whole,
  when the testimony of the victim is reliable and acceptable.21(i) PW­1 father of the victim in his examination in chief stated that
     IO prepared site plan at his instance on 30­1­2014 but in the
     cross   examination,   he   changed   this   stand   and   denied
     preparation of any site plan in his presence. However, as per IO
     PW­13   she   prepared   site   plan   at   the   instance   of   father   of   the
     victim.(ii) PW­2 mother of the victim stated that police had taken victim
     and   her   husband   to   hospital   for   medical   examination   of   the
     victim. She in her cross examination totally denied having gone
     to   hospital.   However,   as   per   IO   PW­13,   parents   of   the   victim
     were present in the hospital where mother of the victim PW­2
     gave statement which was sent to police station for registration
     of the FIR.(iii) As   per   PW­2,   her   statement   was   recorded   in   police   station
     whereas according to IO, it was recorded in hospital.(iv) PW­2 totally denied the fact that after incident she had gone to
     the   Jhuggi   of   the   accused   and   on   seeing   them,   accused   ran
     away  from there. This fact however is stated in her complaint
     given to police Ex. PW2/A.(v) PW­2   stated   in   cross   examination   that   she   did   not   know   the
     name of father of the accused nor had told about the same to
     police but in her complaint Ex. PW2/A, she had mentioned the
     name of father of the accused as Het Ram.(vi) IO   PW­13   in   her   statement   mentioned   that   she   collected   the
     sealed   exhibits   of   the   victim   vide   seizure   memo   Ex.   PW9/A.
     whereas PW­7 doctor stated that she had given the exhibits to22lady constable. On the other hand, PW­8 SI C.P. Singh stated
         that  doctor  handed  over the  exhibits  to  IO  SI  Pooja.  However,
         PW­9   Ct.   Vishu   stated   that   exhibits   were   handed   over   to   him
         and he produced the same before IO SI Pooja Pandey.(vii) As per IO PW­13, she sent rukka from hospital at 11.45 p.m. on
         the basis of the statement of mother of the victim but this is the
         time when the FIR was already registered in police station and
         rukka and copy of FIR was sent back to the IO at the spot by
         duty officer.Mere fact that IO PW­13 did not remember the exact timings when she
   reached at the spot, what was the number of the vehicle in which she
   reached   spot,  at   what  time   site  plan   was   prepared   by her,   at  what
   time exhibits were deposited in Malkhana through PW­4, when took
   back her seal etc. are not so relevant to reject the prosecution case.
   Number of police officials including the IO fully proved various aspects
   of investigation done in connection with the case from recording the
   FIR till filing the chargesheet and nothing material has come in their
   cross examination to dispute the correctness of the proceedings or to
   show   that   any   material   manipulation   was   done   in   order   to   falsely
   implicate the accused in the case.In   view   of   the   above   discussions,   it   is   hereby   held   that
prosecution has fully proved the case beyond doubt and all the charges
framed   against   accused   persons   are   established.   The   testimony   of   the
victim coupled with FSL/DNA report fully proved that penetrative sexual
assault was committed upon victim by the accused though it was of very23small in degree. Mere fact that hymen of the victim was found not torned
or there was no swelling or bruises on vaginal area itself is not sufficient
to   hold   that   offence   was   not   committed.   Furthermore,   presumptions
undersection   29and30of   POCSO   Act   are   also   exists   against   the
accused which he had failed to rebut. Accordingly, the accused is hereby
convicted   for   offence   of   rape,   criminal   intimidation   punishable   undersection 376and506IPC along withsection 6of POCSO Act. Let he be
heard on point of sentence.Digitally signed by ASHWANIASHWANI            KUMAR SARPALLocation: Karkardooma Courts,KUMAR SARPAL       Delhi
                                                                    Date: 2017.09.13 11:53:46 +0530

Dated­13­9­2017.                                  (Ashwani Kumar Sarpal)
                                                   Addl. Sessions Judge­1.