* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : MAY 02, 2017
DECIDED ON : MAY 19, 2017
+ CRL.A. 443/2016 CRL.M.A.No.7162/17
JUDGE KUMAR @ DEEPAK
Through : Mr.P.R.Aggarwal, Advocate with
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 18.04.2016 of
learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 204/2013 arising out of
FIR No. 256/2013 at Police Station K.N.K. Marg whereby the appellant
Judge Kumar @ Deepak was held guilty for committing offence punishable
under Section 10 of POCSO Act and Section 506 IPC. By an order dated
22.04.2016, he was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine
`5,000/- for offence under Section 10 POCSO Act; Rigorous Imprisonment
Crl.A.443/2016 Page 1 of 7
for one year with fine `3,000/- for offence under Section 506 IPC. Both the
sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-
sheet was that on 26.06.2013 in between 07.15 a.m.to 7.25 a.m. in school
van from I-2/6,7, Sector-16, Rohini to Sachdeva Public School, Rohini, the
appellant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix ‘X’ (changed name) aged around
fifteen years. The information regarding the occurrence was conveyed to the
police on 27.06.2013. The investigation was assigned to SI Suresh Chand
who after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-2/A) lodged First
Information Report. ‘X’ was taken for medical examination; she recorded her
164 Cr.P.C. statement. The appellant was arrested. Statements of the
witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of
investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted. In order to establish its
case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the
accused denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication
due to previous quarrels with victim’s grandmother. The trial resulted in
conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has
preferred the instant appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. During the
course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant emphasized for
modification of the sentence order as the appellant has undergone substantial
period of substantive sentence; he is not a previous convict. It was further
urged that the appellant is to maintain his small children.
4. Admitted position is that the prosecutrix ‘X’ was below 18
years of age on the day of occurrence. PW-1 (Vinay Kumar), Assistant
Administrative Officer, Sachdeva Public School, Sector 13, Rohini, proved
Crl.A.443/2016 Page 2 of 7
the relevant record i.e.Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C showing the
date of birth recorded therein as 12.1.1998. The date of birth was recorded
much prior to the happening of the unfortunate incident. There was least
possibility of victim’s parents to manipulate her age. No cogent document
has been placed on record by the appellant to show the prosecutrix to be
aged around 18 years on the day of occurrence. It is also undisputed that the
appellant used to take ‘X’ to her school in his van driven by him.
5. The occurrence took place on 26.6.2013 in between 7.15 to
7.25 a.m. in the appellant’s van when ‘X’ was being taken to her school.
There was no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR on 27.6.2013. In her
complaint (Ex.PW-2/A), the complainant gave graphic detail of the incident
and named the appellant to be the perpetrator of the crime. She attributed
specific and definite role to the appellant. Her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. came to be recorded on 27.6.2013. Various questions were put by
the learned Presiding Officer before recording her statement to ascertain if
‘X’ was making her statement voluntarily without any fear or pressure and
was able to give rational answers to the questions put to her. After recording
her satisfaction, the learned Presiding Officer recorded her 164 Cr.P.C.
statement. In 164 Cr.P.C.statement, (Ex.PW-2/B), she reiterated her version
given to the police at first instance and gave detailed account as to how and
in what manner, she was sexually assaulted by the appellant. In her court
statement as PW-2, she proved the version given to the investigating
agency/court without major variation. She deposed that on 26.6.2013, she
was studying in class XI at Sachdeva Public School, Sector 13, Rohini. On
that day, she had gone to attend special classes in the school in the van
driven by the appellant. She boarded the van at about 7.15 a.m. and sat on
Crl.A.443/2016 Page 3 of 7
the front side of the van. There was no other child in the van. She further
deposed that on the way, the appellant started misbehaving her; touched her
hands, shoulder, back, lower back, chest and face. She asked him to stop.
On that the appellant pulled her cheek and kissed her. By that time, they had
reached to the school. When she was getting down from the van, the
appellant held her hand and threatened not to disclose the incident or else he
would kill her. In the cross-examination, she disclosed that the appellant
was beaten by her father and other persons/individuals when he had come
next day to pick her for school. She denied if no such incident had happened
or that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case.
6. On scanning the entire testimony of the prosecutrix, it reveals
that no material infirmities could be extracted in the cross-examination to
disbelieve ‘X’s version. No ulterior motive, whatsoever, was assigned to the
child witness to make serious allegations of sexual assault against the van
driver who was acquainted with her before the occurrence. In the absence of
prior animosity or ill-will, ‘X’, a student of XI class was not imagined to
level false allegations of sexual assault to bring herself in disrepute. The
prosecutrix is consistent throughout and no valid reasons exist to discard her
7. Her post-event conduct is quite natural and reasonable. After
her class was over, instead of accompanying the appellant back to her home
in the van, she preferred to call her father to take her. Victim’s father came
at the school and brought back the prosecutrix to home. She apprised her
father about the crime. Victim’s father called the appellant to come next day
to confront him. When the appellant came next day to pick up the girl for
Crl.A.443/2016 Page 4 of 7
school, as usual, he was confronted by the victim’s father and was also
threshed by the people from the locality for his misadventure.
8. Faint attempt was made by the appellant to wriggle out
claiming that ‘X’ was not taken in the van to the school that day as school
was closed due to summer vacation. True, it were summer vacations in the
school. However, the prosecutrix has given reasonable explanation to visit
the school that day as special classes were to be held for students of XI class.
In the cross-examination, she informed that Ms.Shalini Gupta had marked
her attendance in the school that day. Out of forty children in her class, 50%
of them were present that day. She named some of the students Manisha,
Utsav and Yash Modak present in the school that day. PW-10 (Dr.Ravija
Prakash), Principal of the school, in her testimony proved the letter dated
9.10.2013 (Ex.PW-10/A) given by her. She deposed that as far as she
remembered, the school was open on 26.6.2013 and the victim was present
there to attend extra classes. Extra precaution was taken by the Trial Court
to ascertain if the school was open on 26.6.2013. By an order dated
19.9.2013, the IO/SHO was directed to file report in this regard. Order-sheet
dated 9.10.2013 reflects that the letter of the school Principal was placed on
record by the Investigating Officer informing that on 26.6.2013 ‘X’ was
present in the school to attend extra classes.
9. Another attempt was made by the appellant to escape alleging
his false implication due to non-payment of his dues by the victim’s father.
The defence deserves outright rejection. In the cross-examination, no
suggestion was put if any dues were payable on any account to him.
Similarly, nothing was suggested to PW-3 (Kamal Singh), victim’s father, if
any dispute had ever arisen over non-payment of dues to the appellant. The
Crl.A.443/2016 Page 5 of 7
appellant did not elaborate as to what were the dues and from which period
it were not paid. For the first time in 313 statement recorded on 16.10.2015,
the appellant claimed that when he had gone to take dues from the victim’s
father, he was falsely implicated in this case. He did not produce any
evidence in defence to establish if any amount was due to him or any quarrel
had taken place over its non-payment. ‘X’ was studying in a public school.
Victim’s parents were not expected to withheld the transport charges (if any)
payable to the appellant. For a petty amount, the victim or her parents were
not expected to use their own minor child to settle score. Defence pleaded by
the appellant is conflicting and inconsistent.
10. The impugned judgment based upon fair appreciation of
evidence deserves no intervention. The conviction recorded by the Trial
Court is affirmed.
11. Regarding modification of the sentence order, I find no
mitigating circumstances. The victim’s parents had bestowed trust upon the
appellant to send their minor child to the school in his van. The appellant
instead of providing security to the innocent child, sexually assaulted her on
the way taking advantage of her being alone in the van. It is to be borne in
mind that POCSO Act was enacted with the objective that the children of
tender age are not abused and exploited. The appellant, aged around 38
years, was aware of his nefarious design. He exploited the innocence of the
unsuspecting child. The court can well understand the victim’s trauma for
indecent sexual assault suffered by her.
12. Section 10 POCSO Act prescribes minimum sentence i.e.
Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. The sentence, thus, cannot be
Crl.A.443/2016 Page 6 of 7
modified or reduced. The crime committed by the appellant is horrible as
the child around 15 years was defiled by an individual aged around 38 years.
13. Recently Coordinate Bench of this Court in State vs.Sunil
(Crl.A.1232/2015) and Sunil vs. State (Crl.A.288/2017) decided on 2.5.2017
held that benefit of probation cannot be extended to the offender who is held
guilty for an offence where minimum sentence is prescribed.
14. In the light of the above discussion, I find no merit in the
present appeal and it is dismissed.
15. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
16. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for
MAY 19, 2017/sa
Crl.A.443/2016 Page 7 of 7