Gulab Kant Yadav vs State on 25 May, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 21st March, 2017
Decided on: 25th May, 2017
+ CRL.A. 326/2015
GULAB KANT YADAV ….. Appellant
Represented by: Ms. Seema Misra, Advocate for
Ms. Naomi Chandra, Advocate.
versus

STATE ….. Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 377/506 IPC and
Section 6 of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in
short ‘POCSO Act’), Gulab Kant Yadav challenges the impugned judgment
dated 26th July, 2014 and the order on sentence dated 4th August, 2014
directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and
to pay a fine of `2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO
Act, rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of
`2,000/- for offence punishable under
Section 377 IPC and rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable under
Section
506 IPC.

2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Gulab Kant Yadav
contends that neither the aunt of the prosecutrix nor her friend was examined
in the Court. As per the testimony of PW-5 Dr. Anudeep Arora, there was no
sign of external injury, thus, the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution case. Neither the site plan nor the pointing out memo was

CRL.A. 326/2015 Page 1 of 7
prepared. There being uncertainty in the number of toilets, in the absence of
site plan or pointing out memo, there is no corroboration to the version of the
prosecutrix.

3. Per contra learned APP for the State submits that the demeanor of the
prosecutrix in Court shows her truthfulness. Prosecutrix is a reliable witness
because in her testimony, she categorically answers the questions put to her.
Since the incident relates back to one year, thus, there could be no
corroboration by medical evidence. Version of the prosecutrix is
corroborated by the testimony of PW-1 Jyoti Joshi, the teacher.

4. The offence alleged against Gulab Kant Yadav unfolded when
Yamuna Devi, PW-2 mother of ‘H’ a student of prosecutrix’s class informed
her on 12th April, 2013 around 9:00 AM that one of the friends of ‘H’ had
complained that a student of her class was being harassed and someone was
doing galat kaam with her. She called ‘H’ to verify the fact who informed
that ‘S’ told her about the same. On ‘S’ being called, ‘S’ informed that the
prosecutrix had complained to her that her uncle Gulab Kant Yadav was
doing galat kaam with her and would touch her inappropriately since they
used the common bathroom. Gulab used to take her to the toilet and did
galat harkat with her. She called up the house of prosecutrix and around
2:00 P.M. aunts of prosecutrix arrived at school. Mother of the prosecutrix
could not come due to indisposition. She talked to the maternal aunt of the
prosecutrix and told her the facts which were brought to her knowledge by
the prosecutrix. Her aunt stated that she did not know anything and thereafter
spoke to the prosecutrix in private. Aunt of the prosecutrix confirmed what
the prosecutrix had told her was truth. She told the prosecutrix to report the
matter and was informed that Gulab was doing this act for the past one year

READ  Ashok vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2017

CRL.A. 326/2015 Page 2 of 7
and threatened to kill her brothers and sisters if the prosecutrix told anyone.

5. Thereafter on 13th April, 2013, PW-7 the prosecutrix, along with her
aunt visited PS Parliament Street wherein her statement was recorded by
PW-15 W/ASI Ancy Philip. The prosecutrix stated that she lived in the staff
quarter of Rashtrapati Bhawan, GRG Road along with her mother, maternal
grandmother, brother, sister, maternal uncle and aunt and studied in class V
at Navyug School. She stated that few days back she told her school friend
‘S’ that Gulab Kant Yadav, who stayed next of her house and worked as a
cook in the house where her grandmother also worked, was doing gandi
gandi harkatein with her since last few months. Initially, when the
prosecutrix used to go to the bathroom, Gulab Kant Yadav used to say that
since she won’t be able to latch the door, he will stand inside and she can
bath and use the bathroom. Once he held her inside the bathroom, removed
his pants, made her sit on his lap and inserted his penis in her vagina. When
she felt pain and started crying, Gulab Kant Yadav threatened to kill her. She
did not tell anyone about the incident out of fear. Gulab Kant Yadav did
galat kaam with her on multiple occasions sometimes in the bathroom and
sometimes in his room. He had also put his penis in her mouth. She narrated
the entire incident to ‘S’ who in turn narrated to ‘H’ who also studied in her
class. Thereafter, ‘H’ narrated the facts to her mother who came to her
school and told about the incident to her class teacher. Her class teacher
called the mother of the prosecutrix to school and told her about the incident.
FIR No. 58/2013 was registered under Sections 376/377/506 IPC at PS
Parliament Street on the statement of the prosecutrix vide Ex.PW-7/A.

6. Thereafter, PW-15 W/ASI Ancy Philip along with PW-8 W/Ct. Reena
took the prosecutrix to Lady Hardinge Medical College for her medical

CRL.A. 326/2015 Page 3 of 7
examination where the prosecutrix and her maternal aunt refused for her
internal examination. On 14th April, 2013 around 9:00 A.M., PW-15 W/ASI
Ancy Philip along with PW-6 Ct. Rajesh Kumar went to the place of incident
where the prosecutrix and her aunt pointed out Gulab Kant Yadav. After
making enquiries from him, he was arrested. Thereafter, the statement of the
prosecutrix was recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.

READ  Dharmeshbhai Manabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 July, 2017

7. During the course of trial, PW-11 Pawan Kumar, Sub Registrar,
NDMC, Birth and Death Unit, deposed that the date of birth of the
prosecutrix, as per their record, was 20th January, 2003. The birth certificate
was exhibited as Ex. PW-11/A. PW-3 Sukhbir Singh, LDC, Kendriya
Vidyalaya, stated that as per the admission register Ex. PW-3/B, the date of
birth of the prosecutrix was 20th January, 2003.

8. PW-7 prosecutrix deposed in sync with her statement made to the
police. She further stated that ‘Gulab uncle mujh se badtamizi kartey theey.
Jab bhi mai bathroom jati, ye piche piche ata aur mere kapde utar deta’. She
stated that Gulab would remove his pants whenever he entered the bathroom,
he touched her private parts with his private parts and inserted his private
part in her mouth several times. She suffered pain all the time and stated ‘jab
meine shor machaya to Gulab uncle ne mere muh par hath rakh liya aur
kaha ki shor macha toh mere chote bhai ko jaan se maar dega’. She was
forcibly taken to his room when his wife and children were away and he did
galat kaam with her. During her cross-examination, she stated that her
grandmother and her mother had cordial relationship with Gulab and his
family.

9. PW-12, mother of the prosecutrix, corroborated the version of the
prosecutrix. PW-1 Jyoti Joshi, class teacher of the prosecutrix also deposed

CRL.A. 326/2015 Page 4 of 7
in sync with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

10. PW-2 Yamuna, mother of ‘H’, stated that her daughter ‘H’ had told
her that one of her friend had informed her that some uncle was doing
something galat with her. On 12th April, 2013, she had gone to her daughter’s
school and met the class teacher. She told the class teacher everything that
was revealed to her by ‘H’. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had
not spoken to the girl who had revealed those facts to ‘H’ and does not know
the girl with whom the wrongful act was done.

11. PW-5 Dr. Anudeep Arora, Senior Resident, Obstetrics and
Gynecologist, RML Hospital, who had examined the prosecutrix and
prepared her MLC Ex. PW-5/A, stated that he had given an opinion that
possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out.

12. Contention of learned counsel for Gulab Kant Yadav that since the
version of the prosecutrix was not supported by medical evidence the same
should be ignored, deserves to be rejected. The allegations of the prosecutrix
against Gulab Kant Yadav are that over a period of time he was harassing
her and committing the offences alleged. She could not muster the courage
to tell her family members and confided with the classmate who confided
with other classmate who in turn informed her mother. The prosecutrix is
consistent in her statement made before the police, under
Section 164
Cr.P.C. and before the Court. Her version is duly corroborated by PW-1 the
teacher and PW-2 Mrs. Yamuna Devi, mother of a classmate ‘H’. In her
deposition before the Court she reiterated that ‘Gulab uncle mujh se
badtamizi karte they. Jab bhi main bathroom me jati, ye pichey piche ata
aur mere kapde utar deta tha.” She further stated that Gulab used to remove
his pant whenever he entered in the bathroom and touched his private part

READ  Mohan Lal And Ans vs State on 29 June, 2017

CRL.A. 326/2015 Page 5 of 7
with her private part. Gulab uncle had also inserted his private part in her
private part and her mouth several times. She stated that she suffered pain
and when she wanted to shout, he kept his hand on her mouth and threatened
that he would kill her younger brother. She also deposed that Gulab used to
forcibly take her to his room and do galat kaam with her. Though no site
plan has been proved however, in her cross-examination the prosecutrix
elicited that there were four servant quarters where they were residing and
between her room and that of Gulab, there was one servant quarter. There
were two common toilets, one in the front and the other on the rear side of
the servant quarters. In fact the suggestion given to the prosecutrix is that
the maternal grandmother and mother of the prosecutrix had cordial
relationship with Gulab and his family.

13. The plea of Gulab in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that he
gave a loan to the mother and grandmother of the prosecutrix who owed
towards him and when he requested for payment they quarreled and filed this
false case against him. No defence evidence was led. Further as noted
above, no such suggestion was given to the prosecutrix. The suggestion to
the mother of the prosecutrix that her mother used to borrow money from the
accused and when he demanded back the money, he was falsely implicated,
was denied. In the absence of any further material on record, the defence of
Gulab that he was falsely implicated due to a money dispute cannot be
accepted.

14. The fact that the prosecutrix was pressurized not to disclose the
offence is evident as she could not muster the courage to speak to her family
members and only confided with one of the classmates who further told
another classmate who in turn told her mother.

CRL.A. 326/2015 Page 6 of 7

15. Considering the cogent and convincing testimony of the prosecutrix,
duly corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses, I find no infirmity in
the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under
Sections
377/
506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and the order on sentence. Appeal
is accordingly dismissed.

16. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for
updation of the Jail record.

17. TCR be returned.

(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MAY 25, 2017
‘vn’

CRL.A. 326/2015 Page 7 of 7

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *