CRL.A.--1061/2016. Case: HANS RAJ @ BHOLA Vs. STATE. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CRL.A.--1061/2016 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | September 21, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on:30.08.2017 Judgment Pronounced on: 21.09.2017
+ CRL.A 1061/2016
HANS RAJ @ BHOLA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State with SI Ramesh Kumar, PS Sultan Puri
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J.
-
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the impugned dated 06.10.2015 in Sessions Case No.28/14 arising out of FIR 834/13 registered under Sections 376(2)(i)/511 of the Indian Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) whereby the Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’). By order 8.10.2015, the Trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for five years and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
-
On 05.12.2013, after receipt of DD No.57-B, PW-13 W/SI along with L/Ct. Kamlesh went to House No.S-168, Dhabe Wali
C-3 Block, Sultan Puri, Delhi where SI Vikas Sahu and Ct. Raj met her. SI Vikas Sahu introduced the complainant Smt. Sushma PW-13 SI Rakhi. The complainant informed PW-13 SI Rakhi that neighbour Bhola (appellant) had attempted to molest her daughter (child victim) and her neighbour’s daughter “I” (second child both aged about five years on 05.12.2013. In the meanwhile, Khan, who was an official from an NGO, had also arrived at the and counselled the complainant. The complainant got her recorded in which she stated that on the same day at about 9 PM was getting mehendi inscribed on her hand in the lane in front of house when suddenly her child victim “K” came running to her informed her that the appellant had kissed her and child victim “I” that the appellant was removing underpant of child victim “I”. complainant stated that on hearing this she along with child “K” rushed to the park where she saw that the appellant had child victim “I”s underpant down to her knees and was urinating in presence. On seeing this, the complainant called the mother of victim “I” through child victim “K” to the park where apprehended the appellant and brought him to the lane in front of house and called the police. The complainant further stated that appellant started apologizing and she along with mother of victim “I” thrashed the appellant several times after which appellant managed to escape. The police arrived at the scene of after all this had happened.
-
On the basis of this statement made by the mother of child victim FIR no.834/13 was registered. Both child victims were
examined at the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and a site plan prepared, the appellant was arrested on the next day of the and his disclosure statement was recorded. Statements of both child victims were recorded under Section 164 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’).
-
The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in order to bring home guilt of the appellant.
-
The Trial Court convicted the appellant relying primarily on testimony of both the child victims. The Trial Court found testimony of both the child victims to be reliable and corroborating each other and that of the testimony of their respective mothers PW-4 Sushma (mother of child victim “K”) and PW-9 Preeti of child victim “I”) who are also eye witnesses in the present case.
-
Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that the judgment of Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises and therefore to be set aside.
-
He argued that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the case which is clear from the call made by PW-12 Karamvir Singh PW-1 Ct. Usha Rani informing that a boy aged about 18 years been apprehended whereas the appellant was about 40 years of age.
-
He further argued that the appellant was not arrested at the spot was arrested on the next day of the alleged incident. He urged that parent would allow her daughter to play in the streets at 9 PM the winter...
To continue reading
Request your trial