SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pravesh Dixit @ Tinda vs State Nct Of Delhi on 6 May, 2019

~
*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI
Reservedon:4thAugust,2018
Pronouncedon:6thMay,2019

+CRL.A.851/2017
PRAVESHDIXIT@TINDA…..Appellant
Through:Mr.K.SinghalandMr.Nishant
Bhardwaj,Advs.

versus

STATENCTOFDELHI…..Respondent

Through:Mr.G.M.Farooqui,APPfor
StatewithSIA.Negi,PSDwarkaSouth

CORAM:

HON’BLEMR.JUSTICEC.HARISHANKAR

%JUDGMENT

1.TheappellantPraveshDixit@Tindastandsconvicted,vide
judgmentdated23rdFebruary,2017,underSections367andSection342of
theIndianPenalCode,1860(theSectionIPC)andSection4oftheProtection
ofChildrenfromSexualOffences(POCSO)Act,2012,havingbeen
foundguiltyofsubjectingachild,17yearsand4monthsofage(who
wouldbereferredto,hereinafter,as‗X’),to―penetrativesexual
assault‖.Consequentthereto,theappellanthas,videsubsequentorder
dated27thApril,2017,beensentencedto10years’rigorous
imprisonment(RI),forcommissionoftheoffencepunishableunder
Section4ofthePOCSOAct,to1year’sRIfortheoffencepunishable
underSection342oftheIPC,andto2years’RIfortheoffence
punishableunderSectionsection367oftheIPC,thesentencesbeingdirected

CRL.A.851/2017Page1of66
torunconcurrently.Hehasalsobeensentencedtopayfinesof₹1
lakh,₹50,000/-and₹1000/-,fortheoffencespunishableunder
Section4ofthePOCSOAct,andSection367andSection342ofthe
IPC,respectively,withdefaultsentencesofoneyear,6months’and3
months’simpleimprisonmentforeachoffence.Outofthesaid
amount,thelearnedSpecialJudgehasdirecteddisbursementof
₹1,20,000/-toX.

2.Theappellantisinappeal.

TheImpugnedJudgment

3.Thefactualbackdropofthecase,assetoutbytheLearnedASJ
intheimpugnedjudgment,maybesetoutthus.

4.Atabout05:10PMon26thFebruary,2013,informationwas
receivedbythepolice,fromMobileNo.9716553226,regardinga
quarrel.TheinformationwasassignedtoSIGhasiRam(PW-18),who
reachedthespotalongwithConst.Jayprakash(whowasnotco-opted
asawitness).Theinformationwasalsoconveyedto(W/SI)Ramwati.
TheIOSIGhasiRam(PW-18)proceeded,fromthespot,totheDeen
DayalUpadhyayHospital(hereinafterreferredtoas―theDD
Hospital‖),wheretheyfoundXalongwithherparentsandherfriend
PW-3-who,alsobeingaminor,shallbereferredto,hereinafter,asM.
ThestatementofXwas,thereafter,recordedbytheI/OSIGhasiRam
(PW-18).PW-14NarenderSharma,whowasfoundatthespotwhere
theassaultwasstatedtohavetakenplace,disclosedthenameofthe

CRL.A.851/2017Page2of66
appellant,andstatedthathewasknownbythenameRajDixit.
Thereafter,thestatementofXwasrecorded,andendorsedbythe
Policeauthorities.Xdeposed,inherstatement(underSection161of
theCr.P.C.),that(i)onthatday,i.e.on26thFebruary,2013,shehad
leftthehouse,at02:00PM.,supposedlyfortuition,buthad,instead,
proceededtomeetPW-3(M),whomshehadcalledtothePalam
Flyover,(ii)whiletheywerewaitingatthebusstop,M(PW-3)
receivedacallonhismobilephonewhichhedisclosedtobeofRaj
Dixit,(iii)fivetotenminuteslater,awhiteSwiftDzirecar,containing
RajDixitandtwoboys,arrivedatthespot,(iv)M(PW-3)informed
herthatthedriverofthecarwashisfriendRajDixit,(v)onbeing
invitedbyRajDixit,she,andMsatinthecar,(vi)RajDixit
proceededtodropthetwootherpassengers,and,thereafter,droveM
andXtoaPizzaHutoutlet,wherehegaveherjuicetodrink,(vii)
theythenproceededtotheMetroStationatSector-9,Dwarka,where
theyreachedatabout04:00PM,(viii)RajDixitaskedMtogeta
documentfromtheMarutiShowroomlocatedthere,(ix)RajDixit,
thereafter,drovehertoanunknownplace,claimingthatitwashis
farmhouse,(x)atthattime,acallfromMwasreceivedonthemobile
phoneofRajDixit,(xi)RajDixitdirectedXtotellMthathehadgone
tohishousetogethisdebitcard,leavinghisphoneinthecar,andto
disconnectthecallafterconveyingthesaidmessage,(xii)toaquery
byX,astowhyRajDixithadcoercedhertolietoM,regardinghis
havinggonetohishousetogethisdebitcard,RajDixitresponded
thatthewholeareabelongedtohimandhecoulddowhateverhe
wanted,(xiii)X,thereafter,alightedfromthecar,but,onfindingthat
shehadleftherbaginthecar,returned,whereuponRajDixitpushed

CRL.A.851/2017Page3of66
herontotherearseatofthecarandlockedthecarfrominside,(xiv)
onXrequestingthatshebepermittedtogo,RajDixitthreatenedher,
reiteratingthattheentireareabelongedtohim,andthathewouldcall
8to10persons,whowouldgangrapeher,(xv)shewasunable,inthe
circumstances,toalightfromthecar,(xvi)RajDixit,thereafter,
threatenedXandabusedM,whereuponsheagreedtoactasperhis
dictates,outoffear,(xvii)RajDixit,thereafter,removedherjeansand
rapedher,(xviii)havingdoneso,RajDixitstatedthathewouldmarry
X,towhichXrespondedthatshedidnotdesiretomarryhimand
requestedthatshebedroppedatherhouse,(xix)RajDixitdropped
heratthePalamFlyoverandleft,(xx)X,thereafter,calledM,who
senthisfriendAditya(PW-2)tothespotonhisScooty,onwhichhe
drovehertotheSector-9,MetroStationatDwarka,and(xxi)
thereafter,thePCRtookher,aswellasMtothehospital,whereshe
wasexamined.Consequenttothesaidexamination,acasewas
registeredbythePolice.Duringthecourseofinvestigation,the
evidencewascollected,thestatementofwitnesseswererecorded,and
theappellantwasarrested.

5.Videorderdated12thJuly,2013,theappellantwaschargedwith
havingcommittedoffencespunishableunderSections367andSection342of
theIPC,aswellasSection4ofthePOCSOAct.Theseprovisionsare,
forreadyreference,reproducedthus:

―342.Punishmentforwrongfulconfinement.-

Whoeverwrongfullyconfinesanypersonshallbe
punishedwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionfora

CRL.A.851/2017Page4of66
termwhichmayextendtooneyear,orwithfinewhich
mayextendtoonethousandrupees,orwithboth.

367.Kidnappingorabductinginordertosubject
persontogrievoushurt,slavery,etc.-Whoever
kidnapsorabductsanypersoninorderthatsuchperson
maybesubjected,ormaybesodisposedofastobeput
indangerofbeingsubjecttogrievoushurt,orslavery,or
totheunnaturallustofanyperson,orknowingittobe
likelythatsuchpersonwillbesosubjectedordisposed
of,shallbepunishedwithimprisonmentofeither
descriptionforatermwhichmayextendtotenyears,and
shallalsobeliabletofine.‖

―4.Punishmentforpenetrativesexualassault.

Whoevercommitspenetrativesexualassaultshallbe
punishedwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionfora
termwhichshallnotbelessthansevenyearsbutwhich
mayextendtoimprisonmentforlife,andshallalsobe
liabletofine.‖

6.Theappellantpleadednotguiltyandsoughttrial,which,
thereupon,commenced.

7.Duringthecourseoftrial,theprosecutionledtheevidenceof
twentyoneprosecutionwitnesses(PWs),whomaybeenumeratedas
under:

Sl.Witnesses
No.
1.PW-1X
2.PW-2AdityaPanwar
3.PW-3Abhay
4.PW-4ManuVedwan,MM
5.PW-5D.S.Rana,YogaTeacher
KendriyaVidhalaya,VikasPuri
6.PW-6Parveen,LabAttendant,FSL

CRL.A.851/2017Page5of66
Rohini
7.PW-7AmitBhanwala,Scientific
Assistant,FSLRohini
8.PW-8Dr.MeghaBatra,Medical
Officer,DDUHospital
9.PW-9ASIManjeetSingh
10.PW-10Dr.AvnishBhargava,Medical
Officer,DDUHospital
11.PW-11Dr.S.RenuBala,Sr.(OBG),
DDUHospital
12.PW-12Dr.Dayanand,Sr.Resident
(Surgery),DDUHospital
13.PW-13WConstableKavita
14.PW-14NarenderSharma
15.PW-15Ct.Sandeep
16.PW-16Ct.Ranbir
17.PW-17HCAmarChand
18.PW-18SIGhasiRam
19.PW-19SIRamwati
20.PW-20Insp.SunilGodiyal
21.PW-21L.BabytoDevi,Assistant
Director,Biology,FSL

Evidence

ProsecutionWitnesses

8.Theprosecutionwitnessesmaybedividedintofourcategories,
i.e.

(i)TheprosecutrixX,
(ii)Thepolicewitnesses,namely,PW-9,PW-13,PW-15,
PW-16,PW-17,PW-18,PW-19andPW-20

(iii)Witnesseswhotenderedmedical/forensicevidence,
namely,PW-6,PW-7,PW-8,PW-10,PW-11,PW-12andPW-
21and

CRL.A.851/2017Page6of66

(iv)Otherwitnesses,namely,PW-2,PW-3,PW-4,PW-5and
PW-14.

9.Theevidenceofthesewitnessesmaybebrieflydealtwiththus:

TheProsecutrixX

10.ThestatementofXwasrecordedin-camera,keepingthe
appellantbehindacurtainandoutofsightofX.Hertestimonywas
recordedaftershewasofferedaglassofdrinkingwaterandmade
comfortable,andwasrecordedinthepresenceofherparents.

11.Xtestified,beforeCourt,that,on26thFebruary,2013,sheleft
herhouseat02:00PM,forattendingtuitionclasses,andthat,priorto
proceedingforthesaidclass,shecalledM(PW-3),asshedesiredto
borrowbooksfromhim,inordertoprepareforherexamination.She
statedthatMmetheratthePalamFlyover,wherehereceivedaphone
callfromtheappellant,whotoldhim(M)thathewascomingtothe
PalamFlyovertopickhimup.10to15minuteslater,theappellant
arrivedatthespotinaSwiftDzirecar,accompaniedbytwoother
persons.She,andM,satintheappellant’scar,andproceeded
therefrom.Theappellant,droppedboththeotherpersonstravellingin
thecar,leavingMandherself.Thereafter,accordingtohertestimony,
theappellantdrovethemtotheSector-9MarketinDwarka,where,
fromaPizzaHutoutlet,fromwhereheboughttwobottlesofbeerand
onecanofjuice,whichheofferedtoher.Thereafter,accordingtoher
deposition,theappellanttookthem(PW-3Mandherself),toacar
showroom,whereherequestedM(PW-3)toalightandcalloneofhis

CRL.A.851/2017Page7of66
friendsfromtheshowroom.AssoonasM(PW-3)alighted,the
appellantstartedthecar,calledM(PW-3)andrequestedhimto
connectthecalltohisfriend,towhomtheappellantstatedthathewas
goingtocollecthisdebitcardandwouldreturnin10to15minutes.X
furtherdeposedthat,thereafter,theappellantdroveher,inhiscar,toa
secludedruralarea.Onherqueryingastowhyhehadbroughtherto
thesaidarea,whenhewassupposedtocollecthisdebitcardfromhis
house,theappellantrespondedthat,onthepretextofcollectinghis
debitcard,hehadbroughthertothesaidareaandwoulddo,withher,
whateverheliked.Shefurthertestifiedthat,M(PW-3)calledonthe
mobilephoneoftheappellant,andthat,onherattemptingtoescape
fromthecar,theappellantthreatenedherthathewouldcallsomeof
hisfriendswhowouldgangrapeher.AccordingtotheevidenceofX,
theappellant,thereafter,directedhertocallM(PW-3)andinformhim
thattheywereatthehouseoftheappellantfromwherehewas
collectinghisdebitcardandthattheywouldbereturningintento
fifteenminutes.Sheconveyedthesaidmessage,whereafterM(PW-3)
disconnectedthecall.Xfurtherdeposedthatshe,atthispoint,started
crying,whereupontheappellantthreatenedherandaskedhertokiss
him,failingwhichheagainthreatenedwithgangrape.Shestatedthat
shesomehowmanagedtoopenthedoorofthecarandgetdown,but,
onfindingthatshehadleftherbaginthecar,returnedtothecarto
collectit,seizingwhichopportunitytheappellantpushedherinside
thecar,threateningher,again,thathewouldhavehergangraped,and
wouldfilmtheact.Xallegedthattheappellantkissedher,and,
abusingM(PW-3),statedthatshewouldgetnothingfromM(PW-3),
whereasshecouldmarrytheappellantandbehappy.Thereafter,X

CRL.A.851/2017Page8of66
allegedthattheappellantmanagedtopulldownherjeansandrape
her.

12.Aftertheacthadbeencommitted,Xaskedtheappellanttotake
hertoM(PW-3),buttheappellantrefused,andinstead,droppedherat
thePalamFlyover,fromwhereshecalledM(PW-3),whoinformed
herthathehadcontactedthepoliceandthathisfriendAditya(PW-2)
wouldarriveatthespot.Shefurtherdeposedthat,around6:00PM
AdityareachedthespotonhisScooty,onwhichhedrovehertothe
carshowroomatDwarka,whereshefoundM(PW-3)withcertain
policemen.Shefurtherdeposedthat,onthepolicemenenquiringfrom
her,shenarratedtheentireincidenttothem,whereaftertheytookher
totheDDUHospitalwhereshewasmedicallyexaminedatabout8:00
PMvideMLCNo.4649(Ex.PW-1/A).Thedoctoratthehospital
retainedherclothes,andshereturnedtothePSDwarkaSouth,where
herstatement(Ex.PW-1/B)wasrecordedbytheIOunderSection161
oftheCr.P.C.Shefurtherconfirmedthat,duringthecourseof
investigation,shehadshowntheIOSIGhasiRam(PW-18)theplace
fromwheretheappellanthadpickedthemup,theplacewhereM
(PW-3)wasdroppedbytheappellant,andtheplacewhereshewas
droppedbytheappellant,aftertheoffencehadbeencommitted,in
respectwhereof,herinstance,Siteplans(Ex.PW-1/C,PW-1/Dand
PW-1/E)wereprepared,whichborehersignatures.

13.Xcorrectlyidentifiedtheappellantincourt,bypeeringthrough
thecurtainbehindwhichshewasstanding.Shealsoidentifiedthe
statementrecordedfromherunderSection161oftheCr.P.C.,which

CRL.A.851/2017Page9of66
was,consequently,exhibitedasEx.PW-1/F.Shefurtheridentified
theclothesandundergarments,whichwerewornbyher,atthetimeof
commissionoftheallegedoffence,whichhadbeenreceivedfromthe
FSL.Thesaidclotheswere,therefore,exhibitedasEx.P-1(colly)and
Ex.P-2.

14.Learnedcounsel,whoappearedfortheappellantbeforethe
LearnedASJ,submittedthathewasnotdisputingtheidentityofthe
SwiftDzirecarno.DL9CAB9463,whichwas,accordingly,
exhibitedasEx.P-3

15.TheprosecutrixXwascross-examinedbylearnedcounselfor
theappellant.Sheclarified,duringthecourseofcross-examination,
thatshehadnevervisitedthehouseofM(PW-3)andwasunawareas
tohowthedoctorinthehospitalrecordedthatshehaddoneso.
Duringfurthercross-examination,theattentionofXwasinvitedtoher
MLC,whichstatedthatherhymenwas―oldtorn‖,towhichshe,while
statingthatshedidnotunderstandthemeaningofthesaidexpression,
submittedthatshehadneverengagedinsexualintercoursepriorto
commissionoftheallegedoffencebytheappellant.Shestatedthatshe
wasnotawareastohowherMLCrecorded―hymenoldtorn‖.She
alsoconfirmedthatshehadnotreceivedanyinjuryatthetimeof
commissionoftheallegedoffence,aswellasthefactthatshehadnot
disclosedthesaidincidenttothedoctorswhohadexaminedher,and
haddisclosedit,forthefirsttime,tothepolice.Shecomplainedthat
thedoctorshadnotrecordedallfactsasnarratedbyher.Shedenied
thesuggestionthatM(PW-3)washerboyfriend,aswellasvarious

CRL.A.851/2017Page10of66
othersuggestions,whichwereputtoherinanattempttodiscredither
testimony.Sheacceptedthefactthat,priortotheactoftheassault,the
appellantdidnotholdherhandorsubjecthertoanyactofphysical
restraint,andalsoadmittedthat,duringtheincident,shedidnotopen
thewindowofthecarormakeanynoise.Shedeniedtheallegation
thatshehadfalselyimplicatedtheappellant,inconnivancewithM
(PW-3).

PoliceWitnesses

16.Amongthepolicewitnesses,onemayconvenientlystartwith
theevidenceofPW-18,theIOSIGhasiRam.

17.PW-18deposed,inhisexamination-in-chiefon11thSeptember,
2015,thatconsequenttoreceiptofDDNo.20-A,on26thFebruary,
2013,he,alongwithConst.Jayprakash,reachedSector-9,Metro
Station,Dwarka,wheretheymetPW-2,alongwithM(PW-3),who
informedhimthat(a)he,alongwithX,wasstandingonthePalam
Flyoverataround2:00PMto2:30PMonthesameday,whenRaj
Dixit,arrivedatthespotinhisSwiftDzirecarandaskedthemtositin
thecar,(b)thereafter,RajDixitdroveM(PW-3)andXtoacar
showroomatSector-9,Dwarka,MetroStation,wherehe(i.e.PW-3)
alightedfromthecarandwenttotheshowroom,wherehemet
NarenderSharma(PW-14),andgotNarenderSharmatospeaktoRaj
Dixittelephonically,(c)oncomingoutoftheshowroom,hefound
thatRajDixithadlefttheplace,withX,inhiscar,(d)heattemptedto
contactXtelephonicallybut,onfailing,hecontactedthepoliceby

CRL.A.851/2017Page11of66
dialing―100‖,(e)he,thereafter,returnedtotheshowroomand,on
enquiry,wasinformedbyNarenderSharma(PW-14)that,thereal
nameoftheappellantwasPraveshDixit@Tinda,and(f)itwasonly
at06:30PMthathereceivedacallfromX,whotoldhimthatshewas
waitingunderthePalamFlyover,whereupon,athisrequest,hisfriend
Aditya(PW-2)pickedherupandreturnedtotheMetroStationat
around06:45PMalongwithX.PW-18furtherdeposedthatX
informedhimthattheappellantPraveshDixit@Tindahadcommitted
awrongactwithher,andthat,athisrequest,theSHOPSDwarka
(South),alongwithW/Const.Kavita(PW-13)reachedtothespot.He
furtherdeposedthat,thereafter,heaccompaniedPW-13andXtothe
Hospital,whereXwasmedicallyexaminedandherstatementwas
recordedbyW/SIRamwati(PW-19),whoalsoreachedthehospital.
W/SIRamwati(PW-19),thereafter,preparedtherukka,whichwas
handedovertohim(PW-18),usingwhichhehadtheFIRregisteredat
PSDwarka(South).AcopyoftheFIRandtheoriginalrukkawere
handedovertoW/SIRamwatiatthehospital.

18.Incross-examination,PW-18GhasiRamacceptedthatM(PW-

3)hadstatedthathewastheboyfriendofX.Healsoacknowledged
thathedidnotrememberthetimewhenW/Const.Kavita(PW-13)
reachedthespotattheDwarkaSector-09MetroStation,thetime
whentheyreachedthehospitalalongwithX,thenameofthedoctor
whoexaminedX,orthedresswhichXwaswearingatthattime.He
furtherdeposedthatW/SIRamwatireachedthehospitalataround
09:00to09:30PMandrecordedthestatementofX,underSection161
oftheCr.P.C.Hefurtherstatedthattherukkawasgiventohimat

CRL.A.851/2017Page12of66
about10:30PMandthathehadreturnedtothehospitalalongwith
copyofFIRat11:30PM-12:00midnight.Hedeniedallsuggestionsto
theeffectthathewasdeposingfalsely.

19.PW-9ASIManjeetSinghdeposedthat,at11:10PMon26th
February,2013,hereceivedtherukka,fromtheIOSIGhasiRam
(PW-18),assentbyW/SIRamwati(PW-19),andthat,onthebasis
thereof,hegotFIRNo.55/13(Ex.PW-9/A)typedbyConst.Harish
Kumar.Heendorsedtherukka(Ex.PW-9/B),byaffixinghis
signaturesthereon.Hewasnotcross-examined,despitegrantof
opportunity

20.Const.Kavita,deposingasPW-13confirmedhavingproceeded,
withtheI/OSIGhasiRam(PW-18)totheMetroStationatDwarka
Sector-9,on26thFebruary,2013intheevening,wheretheymetX,
alongwithherfriend.Sheconfirmed,further,thatofficialsofthePCR
werealsopresentatthespotandthat,fromthespot,theytookXtothe
hospital,whereshewasmedicallyexaminedandbroughtbacktothe
PSDwarkaSouth.Incross-examination,PW-13confirmedthat,after
medicallyexaminingX,thedoctorhandedover,toher,10sealed
pullandas,alongwithasampleseal,whichshehandedovertotheIO
(PW-18),andthatthepullandasandthesealweretakeninto
possessionbythePolicevideSeizureMemoEx.PW-13/A,which
borehersignatures.ShealsoconfirmedthatXhadrelatedtheincident
tothedoctorsattheHospital,inthepresenceofherparents.

CRL.A.851/2017Page13of66

21.W/SIRamwati,deposingasPW-19,testifiedthat,at07:00to
08:00PMon26thFebruary,2013,custodyofXwashandedover,to
her,bySIGhasiRam(PW-18)andW/Const.Kavita(PW-13),along
withtheMLCofXandthatshe,thereafter,recordedthestatementof
X(Ex.PW-1/B),whichborehersignature,andalsopreparedthe
rukka(Ex.PW-19/A),whichshehandedovertoSIGhasiRam(PW-

18).Shealsoconfirmedthat,afterregistrationofthecase,PW-18SI
GhasiRamhandedherthecopyoftheFIRandtheoriginalrukka.She
furtherdeposedthatthecustodyofXwashandedovertoherparents.
TheexhibitsrelatingtotheprosecutrixX,whichwerehandedover,to
her,byW/Const.Kavita(PW-13)wereseizedbyhervideSeizure
MemoEx.PW-13/A,anddepositedintheMalkhana.PW-19W/SI
Ramwatifurthertestifiedthat,on27thFebruary,2013,shewastaken,
byX,totheplacefromwheretheappellanthadgivenher,andher
friendM(PW-3),aliftinhiscar,theplacefromwheretheappellant
hadkidnappedher,aswellastheplacewheretheappellanthadraped
her,andthatthesiteplans(Ex.PW-1/C,PW-1/DandPW-1/E)ofthe
saidspots,whichborehersignature,werepreparedbyher,atthe
instanceofX.W/SIRamwati(PW-19)furtherdeposedthattheSchool
certificate,withregardtotheageofX,whichwashandedovertoher
byherparents,wasverifiedfromtheKendriyaVidyalaya,VikasPuri,
andthat,asperthesaidcertificate,Xwas17yearsofage.PW-19
furtherconfirmedthat,on28thFebruary,2013,thestatementofXwas
recorded,beforethelearnedMetropolitanMagistrate,underSection
164oftheCr.P.C.

CRL.A.851/2017Page14of66

22.Apropostheappellant,PW-19W/SIRamwatideposedthat,on
11thMarch,2013,shereceivedsecretinformationtotheeffectthatthe
appellantwouldbearrivingatthehouseofhismaternalgrandmother
bycar,theregistrationnumberofwhichwasalsoprovidedbythe
informer.Sheconfirmedthataraidingpartywasconstituted,
includingherself,HCKaluRam,Const.RanvirandConst.Roshan,
whichproceededtotheBhartalSubwayBusStop,accompaniedbythe
secretinformer.Sheconfirmed,further,that,ataround10:30-11:00
PM,theynoticedaSwiftDzirecarcomingtowardstheBusstop,
which,onbeingstoppedbythem,wasfoundtobedrivenbythe
appellant.Shetestified,further,thattheappellantwasapprehended,at
theinstanceofthesecretinformerand,afterinterrogation,was
arrestedvideArrestMemoEx.PW-16/A(whichborehersignature),
andhispersonalsearchconductedvideMemoEx.PW-16/B(which
alsoborehersignature).Intimationregardingthearrestofthe
appellantwascommunicatedtohisbrotherRakesh.Thecarofthe
appellantwastakenintopossessionvideSeizureMemoEx.PW-19/B,
andtheappellantwassenttotheDDUHospitalforhismedical
examination.Afterhismedicalexamination,theappellantwasbrought
tothePSDwarkaSouthbyConst.Sandeep(PW-15),whohanded
over,toher,theexhibitsandMLCoftheappellant,whichweretaken
intopossession,byher,videSeizureMemoEx.PW-15/A,and
depositedintheMalkhanaon12thMarch,2013.Shefurtherconfirmed
that,on12thMarch,2013,theappellantwasproducedbeforetheCourt
andremandedtojudicialcustody.

CRL.A.851/2017Page15of66

23.PW-19W/SIRamwatifurtherconfirmed,inherdeposition,that
theexhibits,whichhadbeendepositedintheMalkhana,asalsothe
caroftheappellant,weresenttotheFSLbySISunilGodiyal(PW-

20)on14thMarch,2013.Sheconfirmedhavingpreparedthecharge
sheet,consequenttocompletionofinvestigation,andhavingfileditin
thecourt.Shecorrectlyidentifiedtheappellant,whowaspresentin
thecourt.

24.PW-17HCAmarChandconfirmed,duringtrial,having
deposited,intheMalkhana,(i)tensealedpullandas,alongwitha
sampleseal,handedovertohimbyW/SIRamwati(PW-19),on26th
February,2013,videserialno.574inregisterno.19(Ex.PW-17/A),

(ii)thekeysoftheSwiftDzirecarno.DL9CAB9463,twomobile
phonesandonewallet,containingadrivinglicenseandthe
registrationcertificateofthesaidcar,alongwith₹45/-incash,which
werehandedovertohimbyW/SIRamwation11thMarch,2013,vide
entryatserialno.609inregisterno.19(Ex.PW-17/B),(iii)four
sealedpullandas,handedovertohim,on12thMarch,2013,byW/SI
Ramwati,videentryno.610inregisterno.19(Ex.PW-17/C)and(iv)
onesealedpullanda,giventohimbySISandeepon14thMarch,2013,
videentryno.616inregisterno.19(Ex.PW-17/D).

25.Healsoconfirmed,havinghandedover(i)twelvesealed
pullandas,alongwithasampleseal,toW/SIRamwati,on1stMarch
2013,videRC19/21/13(Ex.PW-17/E),whichwasdepositedinthe
FSLbyW/SIRamwati,whohandedover,tohim,the
acknowledgment(Ex.PW-17/F)inrespectthereof,and(ii)twosealed

CRL.A.851/2017Page16of66
pullandaswithsampleseal,toConst.RanbirSingh(PW-16)videRC
No.26/21/13(Ex.PW-17/G),whichweredepositedbyConst.Ranbir
SinghintheFSLandacknowledgmentthereofhandedovertohim,
videEx.PW-17/H.

26.PW-17wasnotcrossexamined,despitegrantofopportunity.

27.Const.Sandeep,deposingasPW-15,confirmedhaving
proceededwithW/SIRamwati(PW-19),HCKaluRam,Const.
RanbirandConst.RoshantotheBusStopatBarthalVillage,on11th
March,2013at09:30PMandhavingapprehendedandarrestedthe
appellantat10:15PM.Theappellantwas,thereafter,taken,bythem,
totheDDUHospital,at11:30PMforhismedicalexamination
whereafterhewasbroughttoPSDwarka(South).Heconfirmedthat,
at12:00noon,onthenextday,i.e.13thMarch,2013,theappellant
wasagaintakentotheDDUHospitalforhismedicalexamination,
afterwhichthreesealedpullandas,alongwithsampleseal,were
handedoverbythedoctortoW/SIRamwati(PW-19),whichwere
takenintopossessionvideSeizureMemoEx.PW-15/A.Thereafter,
theappellantwasproducedbeforethelearnedMetropolitanMagistrate
andremandedtojudicialcustody.Hecorrectlyidentifiedtheappellant
whowaspresentincourt.

28.PW-15wascross-examinedbylearnedcounselforthe
appellant.Headmittedthathissignaturesdidnotfigureonthe
personalSearchMemo,thedisclosurestatementoftheappellantorthe
SeizureMemodated11thMarch,2013.

CRL.A.851/2017Page17of66

29.Suggestions,totheeffectthathehasbeendeposingfalsely,
weredeniedbyhim.

30.PW-16Const.Ranbiralsotestified,duringtrial,tobeamember
oftheraidteamconstitutedbyW/SIRamwati(PW-19)at09:00PM
on11thMarch,2013,theothermembersoftheteambeingConst.
Sandeep(PW-15),Const.RoshanandHCKaluRam,andtothesaid
teamhavingapprehendedandarrestedtheappellantatabout10:30
PMonthesameday,videArrestMemoEx.PW-16/A,andtohis
personalsearchhavingbeenconductedvidememoEx.PW-16/B.He
alsodeposedthattheappellanthadbeentaken,thereafter,totheDDU
Hospital,bythem,forhismedicalexamination,whereafterthey
returned,withtheappellant,toPSDwarka(South),Hefurther
deposedthat,at11:00AMon12thMarch,2013,theappellantledthe
raidteam,comprisingW/SIRamwati(Pw-19),Const.Sandeep(PW-

15),Const.RoshanandhimselftothespotatE-24atPushpanjali,
Bijwasan,NewDelhi,wherehehadcommittedsexualassaultonX,
andpointedoutthespotofoccurrencevidePointingOutMemoEx.
PW-16/C,whichborehissignature.Healsoconfirmedhavingtaken
theappellant,alongwithInspectorSunilGodiyal(PW-20)totheFSL,
Rohini,on14thMarch,2013,forhavinginspectionofthecar
conductedandtothevehiclehavingbeeninspectedbytheexpertsat
theFSLonthesamedate.Hedeposedthat,fromthevehicle,certain
exhibitswereresumed,whichweretakenintopossessionbyInsp.
SunilGodiyal(PW-20),videSeizureMemo(PW-16/D),whereafter
theyreturnedtoPSDwarka(South).Hecorrectlyidentifiedthe
appellantwhowaspresentincourt.

CRL.A.851/2017Page18of66

31.Nothingsubstantialemergedfromthecross-examinationof
PW-16.

32.SISunilGodiyal,deposingasPW-20,confirmedhaving
proceededtotheFSLwithConst.RanbirSingh(PW-16)on14th
March,2013,forinspectionofCarno.DL9CAB9463,andtohaving
presentedthecarbeforeMs.PoonamSharma,SSO,BiologyDivision,
FSLRohini,Delhi(whowasnotco-optedasawitness),whohanded,
tothem,anenvelopecontainingapieceoftherearseatofthecar,vide
pullindasealedwiththeseal―SG‖,whichwasseized,videSeizure
MemoEx.PW-16/D,whichborehissignature.Heconfirmedhaving
returnedtoPSalongwithvehicleandhavingdepositedthepullindain
theMalkhana.Hewasnotcross-examined,despitegrantof
opportunity.

WitnesseswhotenderedMedical/ForensicEvidence.

33.Thesewitnessescouldbecategorisedintotwocategories,
namely:

(i)Hospitalwitnesses,namely,PW-8,Dr.MeghaBatra,
PW-10Dr.AvnishBhargava,PW-11Dr.S.RenuBalaandPW-
12Dr.Dayanand,and,

(ii)FSLwitnesses,PW-6,Praveen,PW-7AmitBhanwala
andPW-21L.BabytoDevi.

CRL.A.851/2017Page19of66

HospitalWitnesses

34.Ofthefourhospitalwitnesses,theevidenceofPW-8Dr.Megha
BatraandPW-12Dr.Dayanandrelatedtotheappellantand,the
evidenceofPW-10Dr.AvnishBhargavaandPW-11Dr.S.RenuBala
relatedtotheprosecutrixX.

35.ApropostheprosecutrixX,PW-10,whowasdeposingon
behalfofDr.Deepshikha,whohadlefttheserviceofthehospital,
statedthatsheidentifiedthesignatureandhandwritingofDr.
Deepshikhaashehadseenherwritingandsigninginthecourseofher
officialduties.SheprovedtheMLCNo.4649dated26thFebruary,
2013,ashavingbeenpreparedinthehandwritingofDr.Deepshikha
andasbearinghersignature.PW-10wasnotcross-examined,despite
grantofopportunity.

36.MLCNo.4649(Ex.PW-1/A)dated26thFebruary,2013,as
preparedbyDr.Deepshikha,readsthus:

―Broughtformedicalexamination.

O/E
Conscious/oriented.

P/R70/min
BP110/80mmHg
CVS-S1S2(N)
Pupils-B/LNSNR
L/E-Nofreshexternalinjurypresentoverthebodyon
physicalexamination.

RefertoGynaeDepttforfurtherevaluationandexpt
opinion.

CRL.A.851/2017Page20of66

(‗X’)wasaccompaniedbyW/CKavita(2244-SW).

(‗X’)D/oNetaPal,Age17,R/oPalamColony
accompaniedbyfriendMr(‗Y’)presentwithAlleged
H/oexualAssaultbyfriendofMr(‗Y’)(name-Raj
Dikshit)at4:00p.m.on26.2.13.

Patienthadgonetoafriend’shouseto
collectsomesamlepaper,whenshewasmet
byMrRajthere.Mr‗A’wassentoutonan
errandwhenMrRajallegedlytookpatient
outincarridetakentoemptyfarmhouse,
whereshewasAllegedlyrapedunderthreat
ofgangrape.

h/osexualintercoursetodayat4:30p.m.on
26/2/2013f/bejaculation.

Noh/ohitting/slapping.

Sincethenclothesnotchanged.Nowashing
sincethen.

OH-nil.Menarche-3yrback.

PNH-4/2/13PH/FH-n/s

O/E-GCfair.AFeb.PR-84/min.BP-
110/70mmHg.PA-soft.

No…Injurymarksseen.Breast(N).No
bruises.

L/E-NoAbrasion/Injurymark
Mattedpubichair
Whitedischarge(semenlikedischargeseen
comingout)

Hymenoldtorn-Nofreshbleedingseen.

Vaginaintact-Notear.‖

CRL.A.851/2017Page21of66

37.Evidence,inrespectofMLCNo.4649(Ex.PW-1/A)wasalso
tenderedbyPW-11Dr.S.RenuBala,Sr.(OBG)inthehospital,on
behalfofDr.Ankita,whohadlefttheserviceofthehospital.She
deposedthatshewaswellconversantwiththehandwritingand
signaturesofDr.AnkitaandhadseentheMLC,exhibitedasEx.PW-

1/A.Sheproved,onthesaidMLC,thereportofDr.Ankita,which
borehersignatureatpoint‗C’fromtheportionXtoX.

38.Incross-examination,PW-11confirmedthat,intheMLC,Dr.
Ankitahadgivenafinding―hymenoldtorn,vaginaintact(notear)‖,
andalsoconfirmedthattherewerenoexternalinjuriesontheperson
oftheprosecutrixX,evenontheprivateparts.Shealsoconfirmedthat
Dr.Ankitahadtakenthevaginalswabandvaginalsmearof
prosecutrix.

39.Apropostheappellant,PW-8Dr.MeghaBatradeposedthat,on
12thMarch,2013,theappellanthadbeenbroughttothehospitalby
Const.Sandeep(PW-15),wheresheexaminedhim,andcollected
samplesofhisbloodandsemen,aswellashisundergarments,which
wassealedandhandedovertoIO.SheconfirmedthattheMLCofthe
appellant,whichwasexhibitedasEx.PW-8/Awaspreparedbyher
andborehersignatures.

40.ThecommentsofDr.RajivKumar,ontheMLCofthe
appellant(Ex.PW-8/A),werealsoprovedbyPW-12Dr.Dayanand,
Sr.(Surgery)intheHospital,whotestifiedthatDr.RajivKumarhad
workedwithhimforaboutayearandthathehadseenhimwritingand

CRL.A.851/2017Page22of66
signinginthecourseofhisofficialduties.PW-12wasnotcross-
examined,despitegrantofopportunity.

41.TheMLCNo.5938,dated12thMarch,2013,totheextentitis
relevant,containedthefollowingobservations:

―L/E-Nofreshexternalinjuryseenanywhereoverthe
body.

Thereisnothingtosuggestthatthepersoncannot
performsexualintercourse.

RefertoSurg.Emerg.toR/othatthepersoniscapableof
performingsexualact.

C/S/BS.R.Surgery-II

-PtreferredfromcasualtyforMEtoseewhether
patientiscapableofperformingsexualintercourse.

-Thereisnothingtoproveotherwisethatpersonis
incapableofperformingsexualintercourse.‖

FSLWitnesses

42.PW-6Sh.Parveen,LabAttendantattheFSL,Rohinideposed
that,on15thMarch,2013,Const.Ranbir(PW-16)hadarrivedatthe
FSLandhandedovertwosealedpullandas.Hewasnotcross-
examined,despitegrantofopportunity.

43.PW-7AmitBhanwala,ScientificAssistant,FSL,Rohini,
similarly,deposed,duringtrial,that,aspertherecordasenteredby
DharamveerKapoor,ScientificAssistantinFSL,Rohiniwhose

CRL.A.851/2017Page23of66
handwritingandsignaturehecouldidentify,12sealedparcelswere
receivedbyDharamveerKapoor,on1stMarch,2013fromW/SI
Ramwati(PW-19).HeconfirmedthatEx.PW-7/Awasaphotocopyof
theacknowledgmentgivenbytheFSL,Rohiniinthisregardandbore
thesignatureofDharamveerKapoor.

44.Ms.L.BabytoDevi,AssistantDirector,Biology,FSL,Rohini,
deposingasPW-21,confirmedhavingexaminedalltheabove
fourteenparcelsandpreparedherreportinrespectthereof(Ex.PW-
21/A).Incross-examinationsheconfirmedthat―semencouldnotbe
detectedfromthelady’sunderwear,vaginalswabofthevictim,
vaginalsmearofthevictim,vulvalswabofthevictim,rectalswabof
thevictim,buccalswabofthevictim,pubichairofthevictim,
brassiereofthevictim,andonthepieceofthebackseatofthe
vehicle‖.

45.Thereportdated1stNovember,2013,(Ex-PW-21/A)ofthe
FSL,Rohinicertifiedthat,thoughnosemencouldbedetectedonthe
underwear,thevaginalswab,thebloodsample,thevulvalswab,the
rectalswab,thebuccalswab,thebrassiereorthecuttingoftheback
seatofthevehicleNo.DL9CAB9463,andnoforeignbiological
materialcouldbedetectedonthenailclippingofX,semenwas
detectedontheladies’topandonthejeanswhichwerebeingwornby
X,exhibitedasExPW-12/AandExPW-12/B,respectively.

46.DNAanalysisofthesaidsemen,vis-a-visthebloodofthe
appellant,wascertifiedtobesufficienttoconcludethat―alleleData

CRL.A.851/2017Page24of66
fromthesourceof―Ex-13‖isaccountantintheallelicDatafromthe
sourceofEx-12aandEx-12b‖.Thisclearlyindicatedthatthesemen
oftheappellantwasfoundonthelady’stopandthejeanswhichwere
beingwornbytheprosecutrixX,atthetimeoftheallegedincident.

OtherWitnesses:

47.PW-3,thefriendofX,whohasbeenreferredto,inthis
judgment,asM,deposedthat,on25thFebruary,2013,hehadreceived
atelephoniccallfromX,at02:00AMtomeetherthenextdayand
that,on26thFebruary,2013,atabout09:00AMheproceededtothe
MetroStationatSector-14,Dwarka,fromwherehe,andhisfriend,
Aditya,wenttotheHanumanTemple,wheretheyremainedforhalf
anhour.Fromthere,theyreturnedtotheDwarkaMorMetrostation,
wheretheyremainedforanhour,whereafterAdityaleftforhishome.
M(PW-3)remainedattheMetroStationwithotherfriendstill01:30
PMwhereafterheproceededtoPalamtomeetX.Whenhehad
reachednearMadhuVihar,hehadreceivedatelephoniccallfromthe
appellant,andinformedhimthathewasproceedingtomeetXat
Palam.

48.PW-3furtherdeposedthatXreachedthedesignatedspotat
Palamatabout02:15PM.Whiletheywerewaitingatthebusstand,
hereceivedacallfromtheappellantatabout02:30PM.Hedeposed
thattheappellantaskedthemtoremainatthespot,fromwherehe
wouldcometopickthemup,andthat,about10to15minuteslater,
theappellantreachedthespot,inhisSwiftDzirecaralongtwo

CRL.A.851/2017Page25of66
friends.M(PW-3)furtherdeposedthathe,andX,requestedthe
appellanttodropthemattheMetroStationatSector-9,Dwarka.The
appellant,thereafter,droppedhistwofriendsatdifferentspotsand,on
thewaytoSector-9Dwarka,stoppedatawineandbeershopatSector
20,Dwarka,fromwheretheappellantboughttwobottlesofbeer,both
ofwhichheconsumed.TheythereafterproceededtoSector-9Dwarka,
enroutewheretotheappellantstoppedthecarinfrontofaMaruti
Showroom.M(PW-3)furtherdeposedthattheappellantrequested
himtocallaboynamedNarenderfrominsidetheshowroomandthat
he,―i.e.Mproceededtotheshowroom,askingXtoremaininthecar.‖
Hefurtherconfirmedthat,intheshowroom,hemetNarenderand
receivedacallfromtheappellant,whowantedtospeaktoNarender.
Theappellant,thereafter,talkedtoNarenderonthemobilephoneof
M.Narenderaskedhimtowaitintheshowroomfor5to10minutesas
theappellantwascomingafterreversingthecar.However,asthe
appellantdidnotturnupforover10minutes,hecalledtheappellant
onhismobilephone.ThecallwasansweredbyX,whoinformedhim
thattheappellanthadtakenhertohishousetogetsomecards.M
deposedthat,duringthenext30to35minutes,hetriedtheappellant’s
phoneseveraltimes,butitwasswitchedoff,andthat,inthe
circumstances,hecalledthepolicebydialing―100‖.Hestatedthatthe
policereachedthespot,andwhiletheywerewaitingthere,hereceived
acallfromX,whoinformedhimthatshehadbeendroppedbythe
appellantatPalamVillage.ThepolicerefusedtobringXfromPalam
Village,whereuponhe,i.e.M(PW-3),calledhisfriendAditya(PW-

2),whoreachedthespotonhisScootyandproceeded,therefrom,to
Palam,topickupX,withwhomhereturnedinabouthalfanhour.He

CRL.A.851/2017Page26of66
deposedthatXwascryingandthat,oninquirybythe―ACPmadam‖,
Xnarratedwhathadtranspiredwithher.Thereafter,hestated,Xhad
beentakentotheDDUHospitalformedicalexaminationandthathe,
too,proceededtotheDDUHospital,wherehemetXandherbrother.
XwasmedicallyexaminedattheDDUHospital,whereafterthey
returnedtothePoliceStationSector-9,Dwarka,wherehisstatement,
exhibitedasEx.PW-3/DA,underSection161oftheCr.P.C.was
recorded.Mcorrectlyidentifiedtheappellant,whowaspresentin
court.

49.Incross-examination,MdeposedthathehadmetXthrough
PW-2Aditya.Hetestifiedtohaving,inhisstatement(Ex.PW-3/DA
supra)underSection161ofCr.P.C.statedvariousthingswhichwere
actuallynottobefoundinthesaidstatementwithwhichhewas,
accordingly,confronted.Healsoconfirmedthat,on26thFebruary,
2013,hehaddidnothaveanyfightoraltercationwithanyone,and
thathehadnotmadeanyPCRcallallegingabduction,kidnappingor
anykindofquarrel,buthadmerelysoughthelp.Healsoconfirmed
thathehadnotmadeanycalltotheparentsofX,informingthem
regardingtheincidentandthat,whenhehadspokentoXonthe
mobilephoneoftheappellant,shewasnotcrying.Hedeniedthe
suggestionthatXhadintroducedhimtothedoctorsintheDDU
Hospital,asherboyfriend.Healsodeniedhaving,inhisstatement
underSection161ofCr.P.C(Ex.PW-3/DA),informedthepolicethat
hehadproposedtoX,andthatshehadagreed,thoughhehad,infact,
sostatedinthesaiddeposition.Hedeniedthesuggestionthathehad
takenaloanof₹10,000/-fromtheappellantorthathehadfalsely

CRL.A.851/2017Page27of66
implicatedtheappellant,inconnivancewithX,inordertoavoid
havingtopaybackthesaidloan.

50.DeposingasPW-2,AdityaPanwar,afriendofM(PW-3),
testifiedthat,atabout05:30PMon26thFebruary,2013,hereceiveda
callfromMaskinghimtoreachtheMetroStationatSector-9Dwarka
andthatheproceeded,onhisScooty,tothesaidspot,wherehefound
MandthePCRofficers.Minformedhimthat,healongwithXand
theappellant,hadtravelled,inacar,totheMarutishowroomatthe
MetroStationatSector-9Dwarka,whereMwasdroppedbythe
appellantwhoproceeded,therefrom,inhiscarwithX.Hefurther
confirmedthat,abouthalfanhourafterhehadreachedthere,M
receivedacall,onhismobilephone,fromX.Hefurtherstatedthat,
thoughMinformedtheofficialsinthePCRthatXhadcalledhimand
waswaitingunderthePalamflyover,thepoliceofficialdidnotallow
himtoleavethespot,but,instead,askedhimi.e.PW-2,topickupX.
Accordingly,PW-2AdityapickedheruponhisScootyandbrought
hertoSector-9MetroStationDwarka,wherehehandedoverXtothe
PCRofficialsandreturnedhome.

51.Incross-examination,PW-2Adityastatedthathewasnotaware
whetherXwasthegirlfriendofM(PW-3),whohadneverso
informedhim.HeonlyknewthatXandMweregoodfriendsand
usedtogotogether.HeconfirmedthatMhadnotinformedhimon
thephonethattheappellanthadfledwithX.Healsoconfirmedthat
whenhepickedupXonhisScooty,shewasconstantlyweepingbut
didnotinformhimwhathadhappenedandthat,he,toodidnotenter

CRL.A.851/2017Page28of66
intoanyconversationwithX.Hefurtherconfirmedthathe,andXhad
reachedtheSector-9MetroStationataround6:00PM.Heaffirmed
thatnostatementofXwasrecordedbythepoliceinhispresence.He
deniedthesuggestionthathehadnotgonetopickupXfromthe
PalamflyoverorthatshewasalreadypresentwithMatthetimewhen
hehadreachedtheSector-9MetroStation.

52.Mr.NarenderSharma,TeamManagerwithMagicAutoMaruti
Showroom,Sector-9Dwarka,deposedasPW-14.Heconfirmed
knowingtheappellant,ashehadpurchasedaSwiftDzireVDIcar
fromhim4to5yearsbackandhavingvisitedhisshowroomon
variousoccasionsthereafter.Healsoconfirmedthat,inFebruary,
2013,Mhadvisitedhisshowroomwithagirlandaskedhimtoshow
thesamevehicleasthatwhichhadbeenpurchasedbytheappellant,
whereuponheshowedaSwiftcartothem.

53.Onthesameday,certainpoliceofficialscametohisshowroom
andtookhim,withthem,tothepolicestationDwarka,wherehe
remainedtill4:00PMthenextday.Hecorrectlyidentifiedthe
appellantwhowaspresentincourt.

54.Incross-examination,PW-14deniedthesuggestionthat,on26th
February,2013,Mwasnotaccompaniedbyanygirlwhenhevisited
hisshowroom.Hereferredtohisstatementdated26thFebruary,2013,
recordedunderSection161ofCr.P.C.,whichwas,accordingly,
exhibitedasEx.PW-14/A.

CRL.A.851/2017Page29of66

55.Mr.D.SRana,YogaTeacher,KendriyaVidyalaya,VikasPuri,
whereXwasstudying,deposingasPW-5,brought,withhim,the
record,pertainingtoX,accordingtowhich,Xhadbeenadmittedin
ClassIintheKendriyaVidyalaya,VikasPuri,on14thMarch,2001
andaccordingtowhichherdateofbirthwas14thOctober,1995.The
admissionformfilledinbyXatthetimeofsecuringadmissioninthe
schoolwasexhibitedasEx.PW-5/A.Theadmissionformrevealsthat
thedateofbirthofXhasbeenentered,therein,as―14.10.1995‖.

56.Ms.ManuVedwan,learnedMM,deposingasPW-4,confirmed
that,on28thFebruary,2013,thestatementofXwasrecordedunder
Section164oftheCr.P.C,andwasexhibitedasEx.PW-1/F.

57.Afterthestatementoftheprosecutionwitnesseswererecorded,
ashereinabove,thestatementoftheappellantwasrecordedunder
Section313Cr.P.C.Theappellantmerelydenied,flatly,all
allegations,againsthimorprofessedignoranceregardingthesame.
However,heconfirmedthefactthathismedicalexamination,byPW-
8Dr.MeghaBatravideMLC(Ex.PW-8/A),andbyDr.Rajeev,as
wellasthetakingofexhibits,inrelationtohim,intopossession,vide
SeizureMemoEx.PW-5/A,wereamatterofrecord.Heallegedthat
XhadfalselyimplicatedhiminconnivancewithM(PW-3)andtheIO
andthatthecasebeingsoughttobemadeoutagainsthimwasfalse.
HealsoallegedthatM(PW-3),theboyfriendofX,hadborrowed₹
10,000/-fromhimandwasnotreturningtheamountdespitehis
constantrequests.Itwasforthisreason,allegedtheappellant,thatM
(PW-3)hadfalselyimplicatedhimthroughX,whowashisgirlfriend.

CRL.A.851/2017Page30of66

Theappellantalsostatedthathedidnotdesiretoleadtheevidenceof
anydefencewitness.

StatementofXunderSection164Cr.P.C.

58.Xstated,inherstatement,underSection164Cr.P.C,recorded,
on17thAugust,2013,that(i)on26thFebruary,2013,at02:00PM,she
wasproceedingtoattendhertuitionclass,andcontactedM(PW-3),
onhismobile,assomeofherbookswerewithhim,(ii)theyagreedto
meetatthePalamflyover,fromwhereshewouldproceedforher
tuitionclassaftertakingherbooks,(iii)theymetatthePalamflyover,
butM(PW-3)informedherthathehadforgottenherbooksinhis
house,(iv)whiletheywerewaitingtocatchabus,toproceedtothe
houseofM(PW-3),Mreceivedacallfromoneofhisfriendswhom,
shelaterlearnt,wasRajDixit,(v)RajDixitinformedthemthathe
wasnearPalamflyoverandofferedtodropthematthehouseofM
(PW-3),(vi)RajDixitarrivedatthespotinaSwiftDzirecar,which
wasbeingdrivenbyhim,withtwoofhisfriends,(vii)RajDixit
offeredtodropthemtoM’shouseafterdroppinghisfriends,(viii)Raj
Dixit,thereafter,droppedhisfriendsatdifferentspotsandafter
drivingforsometime,stoppedthecarataspot,wherehealighted,
statingthathehadsomeworktodoandwouldreturninfiveminutes,

(ix)duringthesaidtime,sheremainedinthecarwithM,(x)
thereafter,RajDixittookthemtoanotherspot,fromwherehebought
twobottlesofbeerandjuice,(xi)RajDixithadthebeerwhereasM
andXsharedthejuice,(xii)thereafter,RajDixitdrovethemtoa
MarutiShowroomatSector-9Dwarka,whereherequestedM(PW-3)
tocallhisfriendNarender,(xiii)assoonasM(PW-3)proceededto

CRL.A.851/2017Page31of66
theshowroom,RajDixitstartedthecar,(xiv)onheraskingRajDixit
astowhyhewasdrivingaway,RajDixitrespondedthathehad
forgottenhisdebitcardathishouseandwasgoingtogetit,(xv)Raj
DixitalsorangupM(PW-3)andtoldhimthathewasgoingtogethis
debitcard,(xvi)heagainrangupM(PW-3)andrequestedtospeakto
Narender,towhomhestatedthathewouldbereturningwithinfive
minutesduringwhichperiodherequestedNarendertoserveacupof
coffeetoM(PW-3),(xvii)afterdrivingforsometime,heaskedherto
kisshim,towhichsherefused,andrequestedhimtotakehertoM
(PW-3),asshedesiredtoreturnhome(xviii)RajDixitthreatenedher
thattheywereinhisareaandthathecouldcall8-10peoplewho
wouldgangrapeherandfilmtheact,offering,inthealternative,that,
sheshouldhavesexwithhim,(xix)she,thereupon,openedthedoorof
thecarandran,(xx)RajDixitshouted,toher,that8-10personswould
reachthereandwoulddraghertotheareaandhavesexwithher,(xxi)
asshehadforgottenherbagintherearseatofthecar,shereturnedto
thecartoretrievethebag,whereuponRajDixitpushedher,andthrew
herontotherearseatofthecar,(xxii)thoughshetriedtoflee,shewas
preventedfromdoingsobyRajDixit,wholockedthecar,(xxiii)on
herattemptingtoopenthereardoor,RajDixitagainthreatenedtocall
hisfriendswhowouldgangrapeherandfilmtheact,(xxiv)he
repeatedlythreatenedherandabusedM(PW-3)beingofnoworth,
(xxv)he,thereafter,disrobed,pulledoffherjeansandforciblyraped
her,(xxvi)shekeptcryingand,whilecrying,putonherjeansand
requestedtheappellanttodropherhome,(xxvii)theappellant,
thereafter,threatenedtoshowherapornmovieandrepeattheact,
uponwhichshecriedevenmore,whereupontheappellantofferedto

CRL.A.851/2017Page32of66
payhermoneyifsheneededit,(xxviii)shestatedthatshewasnotin
needofanythingexcepttobedroppedhome,(xxix)theappellant
droppedheratthePalamflyoverandshecalledM(PW-3),(xxx)on
M’saskingherwhethershewasalright,sheansweredinthenegative,
(xxxi)M(PW-3)informedherthathewouldbesendinghisfriend
Aditya(PW-2)andwasalsocallingthepolice,(xxxii)Adityaarrived
atthespotandtookherbacktoAwhowasinthecompanyofthe
policeand(xxxiii)shegottoknowthatRajDixit’srealnamewas
PraveshDixit@Tinda,andthathebelongedtovillageBijwasan.She
statedthatshehadnothingfurthertoadd.

TheImpugnedJudgmentandOrderonSentence

59.Followingontheaboveevidence,theLearnedASJhas,inpara
21inhisfindingsintheimpugnedjudgment(which,essentially,
commencefrompara21thereof),heldthat,asXwasbelow18years
ofage,andthefactofherhavingbeensubjectedto―penetrativesexual
assault‖bytheappellant,stoodestablishedbytheevidenceaswellas
theFSLreport,theingredientsofSections342andSection367oftheIPC
stoodsatisfied.HehasalsoheldthattheevidenceofPW-5D.S.Rana,
andtherecordsproducedbyhim,indicatedthatXwasadmittedin
Class-IinKendriyaVidyalaya,VikasPurion14thMarch,2001,and
that,asperheradmissionform,thedateofbirthofXwas14th
October,1995,therebyrenderingher17yearsand4monthsofageon
thedateofthecommissionoftheoffencei.e.26thFebruary,2013.The
testimonyofXhavingremaineduncontroverted,thefactofherbeing
a―child‖,withinthemeaningofthePOCSOAct,stoodestablished.
TheevidenceofDr.AvinashBhargava(PW-10),Dr.S.RenuBala

CRL.A.851/2017Page33of66
(PW-11)andDr.Dayanand(PW-12),furtherprovedthefactthatthe
petitionerwassubjectedto―penetrativesexualassault‖.Thisevidence,
readwiththetestimonyofPW-1(X),PW-2(AdityaPanwar)andPW-
3(M),seeninconjunctionwithPW-3/DA,provedthesequenceof
eventsleadingtoabduction,andsubsequentrape,ofX,bythe
appellant.Thecumulativemedicalandforensicevidence,therefore,it
hasbeenheldbytheLearnedASJ,converged,tobringhome,tothe
appellant,thechargeofhavingcommitted―penetrativesexualassault‖
onX,withinthemeaningofSection4ofthePOCSOAct.

60.Inviewthereof,theLearnedASJhasheldthecommission,by
theappellant,oftheoffencesunderSection367/Section342IPCandSection4
ofthePOCSOAct,tostandproved.

61.Videsubsequentorderdated27thApril,2017,theLearnedASJ
hassentencedtheappellantto10years’RIforcommissionofthe
offenceunderSection4ofthePOCSOAct,7years’RIfortheoffence
underSection367IPCand1year’sRIfortheoffenceunderSection
342oftheIPC,withfinesanddefaultsentencesassetoutinpara1
supra.

SubmissionsattheBar

62.Argumentshavebeenadvanced,onbehalfoftheappellant,by
Mr.K.Singhal,andonbehalfoftheStatebyMr.G.M.Farooqui,
learnedAPP.

CRL.A.851/2017Page34of66

63.Arguingonbehalfoftheappellant,Mr.Singhalhasadvanced
thefollowingsubmissions:

(i)ThefindingthatXwaslessthaneighteenyearsofage
waserroneous,andunsupportedbysufficientevidence.The
onlydocument,insupportofthesaidfinding,wasthe
admissionformofX,atthetimeofhersecuringadmissionin
ClassIintheKendriyaVidyalaya,VikasPuri,andthedateof
birthoftheprosecutrixXasenteredtherein,i.e.14.10.1995.
ReliancewasplacedonthejudgmentoftheSupremeCourtin
SectionJarnailSinghv.StateofHaryana,(2013)7SCC263,to
contendthatthisdocumentwasinsufficientasproofofageof
‗X’.Mr.Singhalfurthersoughttopointoutthatareadingofthe
aforesaidapplication(Ex.PW-13/A)indicatedthatthe
KendriyaVidyalaya,VikasPuri,wasnotthefirstschool
attendedbytheappellantbutthatshehadearlierstudiedinthe
AFVidyaMandir.

(ii)Inviewthereof,Mr.Singhalwouldseektocontendthat
thefindingthattheappellantwaslessthaneighteenyearsofage
wasunsubstantiatedbyrequisiteevidenceandcouldnot,
therefore,sustain.

(iii)TheversionoftheprosecutionindicatedthatXwas
roaminginthecarwiththeappellantforabouttwohours,from
02:00PMto04:00PM,whichindicatedthatshewasnotas
innocentasshemadeherselfouttobe.

CRL.A.851/2017Page35of66

(iv)Therewasdiscrepancyintheversionoftheprosecutrix,
asnotedinthebodyofherMLC(Ex.PW-1/A),vis-à-visher
statementunderSection161oftheCr.P.C(Ex.PW-1/B).
Moreover,theMLCindicatedthattherewasnoinjury,thatthe
hymenealtearsufferedbythepetitionerwasoldandthatno
semenwasfoundonherbody,oronherundergarments.There
wasnoallegationofusageofcondom.Semenwasfoundonthe
jeanswhichwerebeingwornbyXaswellasonher
handkerchief,whichindicatedthatXherselfwipedoffthe
semen.

(v)AperusalofthestatementoftheprosecutrixX,under
Section161Cr.P.C.,revealedthatshehadreferredtotwoboys,
whoweretravellingwiththeappellant,atthetimewhenhe
arrived,forthefirsttime,atthePalamflyover.Noattemptwas,
however,madetoexamineeitherofthesaidpassengers.

(vi)Mr.K.Singhal,learnedcounselfortheappellant,next
invitedmyattentiontothestatement(Ex.PW-1/F)ofthe
prosecutrixX,recordedunderSection164ofCr.P.C.,inrespect
ofwhichheadvancedthefollowingsubmissions:

(a)Hecontendedthat,inthesaidstatement,the
prosecutrixstatedthattheappellanthadshownher,and
M(PW-3),hisvillagehouse,yetshewasunabletostate
theplaceofincidentduringinvestigation.This,he
submitted,wasdifficulttobelieve.

CRL.A.851/2017Page36of66

(b)Xadmitted,inthesaidstatement,thattheappellant
hadpointedout,toM(PW-3),thebuttoninsidethecar,
usingwhichthedoorofthecarcouldbeopenedfrom
within.Theprosecutrixwas,therefore,wellawareofthe
factthat,bypressingthesaidbutton,thecardoorcould
beopened.Herstatement,totheeffectthatshewas
trappedinsidethecarandwasunabletoopenthedoor,
couldnot,therefore,bebelieved.

(c)Thoughthestatementalludedtoacallhavingbeen
made,bytheappellanttoNarender,statingthathewould
bereturninginfiveminutesandrequestingNarender,to,
duringthesaidtime,servecoffeetoM(PW-3),nocall
detailrecordswereeitherproducedorreliedupon.

(d)Thestatement,ofX,totheeffectthatsheopened
thecarandfled,and,thereafter,returnedtothecarto
retrieveherbag,washighlyimprobable,especiallygiven
thenatureofthethreats,which,accordingtoher,were
giventoherbytheappellantpriorthereto,includingthe
threattohavehergangrapedandhavingtheactfilmed.

(vii)MyattentionwasnextinvitedtothedepositionofX,
duringtrial,inwhichshestatedthattheappellantaskedherto
callM(PW-3)andinformhimthattheyhadcometothe
appellant’shousetocollecthisdebitcardandwouldreturnin

CRL.A.851/2017Page37of66
10to15minutes.Mr.Singhalpointedoutthat,in
contradistinction,theotherstatementsweretotheeffectthatM
(PW-3)hadmadethesaidcalltotheappellant,whereuponhe
wasinformedthattheywouldbereturningin10to15minutes.
This,again,hesubmitted,wasapatentdiscrepancy,which
discreditedthecaseoftheprosecution.

(viii)Inhercross-examination,Xherselfadmittedthather
MLC(Ex.PW-1/A)waswronglyrecordedandthatshehad
visitedthehouseofM,whereasshehadneverdoneso.She,in
fact,expressedsurpriseastohowitwassorecordedinher
MLC.

(ix)Inthefaceofthesecontradictions,Mr.Singhalwould
contendthattheevidenceofprosecutrixwasinsufficientto
constitutethesolebasisofconviction.

(x)ThetestimonyofAdityaPanwar(PW-2)wastotally
silentregardinganycomplainthavingbeenmadebythe
prosecutrixaboutsexualassaulthavingbeencommittedonher.
This,again,wasunusual,especiallyconsideringthatAditya
Panwar(PW-2)wasthefirstpersonmetbyherafterthealleged
commissionoftheassault,whopickedherfromthePalam
flyoverandwithwhomshewenttothepolicestation.

(xi)Mr.Singhalnextreferredtothestatementdated26th
February,2013ofM(PW-3),underSection161ofCr.P.C.(Ex.
PW-3/DA),inwhichitwasrecitedthattheappellanthad

CRL.A.851/2017Page38of66
threatenedtheprosecutrixXwithagun,andthathehad
threatenedhertoeliminateheraswellasM(PW-3)incaseshe
disclosed,tothem,whattranspired,whereastherewasnosuch
allegationinanyofthestatementsoftheprosecutrixX.

(xii)Theabovefacts,accordingtoMr.Singhal,indicatedthat
Xwasaconsentingpartnerintheentireact.AsXwasover16
yearsofage,nochargeofrapecouldbefastenedagainsthis
client.

(xiii)Therehadbeennoidentificationofthecrimescene.

(xiv)Thefinding,ofthelearnedASJ,inpara21ofthe
impugnedjudgment,totheeffectthatX―wassubjectedto
unnaturallustoftheaccused‖,couldnot,therefore,sustain.In
thiscontext,Mr.Singhalhasinvitedmyattentiontoclause
―thirdly‖and―fourthly‖inSection100oftheI.P.C.,which
dealswiththerightofprivatedefence.Section100may,for
readyreference,bereproducedthus:

―100.Whentherightofprivatedefenceofthe
bodyextendstocausingdeath.–Therightof
privatedefenceofthebodyextends,underthe
restrictionsmentionedinthelastprecedingsection,
tothevoluntarycausingofdeathorofanyother
harmtotheassailant,iftheoffencewhich
occasionstheexerciseoftherightbeofanyofthe
descriptionshereinafterenumerated,namely:–

(First)–Suchanassaultasmayreasonablycause
theapprehensionthatdeathwillotherwisebethe
consequenceofsuchassault;

CRL.A.851/2017Page39of66

(Secondly)–Suchanassaultasmayreasonably
causetheapprehensionthatgrievoushurtwill
otherwisebetheconsequenceofsuchassault;

(Thirdly)–Anassaultwiththeintentionof
committingrape;

(Fourthly)–Anassaultwiththeintentionof
gratifyingunnaturallust;

(Fifthly)–Anassaultwiththeintentionof
kidnappingorabducting;

(Sixthly)–Anassaultwiththeintentionof
wrongfullyconfiningaperson,under
circumstanceswhichmayreasonablycausehimto
apprehendthathewillbeunabletohaverecourse
tothepublicauthoritiesforhisrelease.‖

Inthepresentcase,Mr.Singhalwouldsubmitthatitcouldnot
besaidthathisclientassaultedXwiththeintentionof
committingrapeorgratifyingunnaturallust,astherewasno
unnaturallustinthefirstplace.

(xv)Mr.Singhalnextsubmittedthat―assault‖necessarily
predicatedapplicationofcriminalforcewithknowledgethatthe
forcewasbeingappliedonachild.Hesubmitsthatnosuch
knowledgecouldbeattributedtotheappellant,especiallyasthe
prosecutrixXwas17yearsand4monthsofageonthedateof
commissionoftheallegedoffence.

CRL.A.851/2017Page40of66

(xvi)Lastly,Mr.Singhalwouldseektosubmitthatthe
punishmentimposedonhisclientbytheLearnedASJis
disproportionatetotheactcommittedbyhim.

64.Arguinginopposition,Mr.G.M.Farooqui,learnedAPPforthe
State,soughttodiscreditthesubmission,ofMr.Singhal,regarding
theageoftheprosecutrixX,bycontendingthattheageofXstood
provedbytheAdmissionFormenteredbyheratthetimeof
admissiontoClassIintheKendriyaVidyalaya,VikasPuri,readwith
thestatementofPW-5Sh.D.S.Rana,whowasnotcross-examined.
Thequestionofconsent,Mr.Farooquiwouldsubmit,didnotarise,as
theprosecutrixXwasaminor.Mr.Farooquialsohighlightedthefact
thattheentireincidenthadtakenplaceatalonelyarea,undersevere
threatheldoutbytheappellant,sothatXwasinnopositiontoraise
anyobjection.Insofarasthecontradictionsintheevidence,towhich
Mr.Singhalhadsoughttoallude,wereconcerned,Mr.Farooqui
wouldsubmitthatminorcontradictions,hereandthere,didnot
detractfromtheoverallvalueoftheevidence,comprehensively
analysed.HealsosoughttosubmitthattheprosecutrixXcould
hardlybeexpectedtonarratetheincidenttoAditya(PW-2)whenhe
cametopickherup,ashewasacompletestranger.

Analysis

65.Theappellantwaschargedwith,andconvictedof,having
committedtheoffencecontemplatedby,andpunishableunder
Section342andSection367oftheIPC,andSection4ofthePOCSOAct.

CRL.A.851/2017Page41of66

Re.Section4ofthePOCSOAct

66.Obviously,byinvocationofSection4ofthePOCSOAct,the
possibilityofinvocationofanyoftheprovisionsofSectionIPCstoodruled
outinviewofSection42oftheformerstatute,whichreadsthus:

―42.Alternatepunishment.-Whereanactoromission
constitutesanoffencepunishableunderthisActandalso
underSectionsections166A,Section354A,Section354B,Section354C,Section3540,Section370,
Section370A,Section375,Section376,Section376A,Section376C,Section3760,Section376EorSectionsection509
oftheIndianPenalCode,then,notwithstandinganything
containedinanylawforthetimebeinginforce,the
offenderfoundguiltyofsuchoffenceshallbeliableto
punishmentunderthisActorunderSectiontheIndianPenal
Codeasprovidesforpunishmentwhichisgreaterin
degree.‖

67.Section4ofthePOCSOActcontemplatespunishmentof
personswhocommit―penetrativesexualassault‖.―Penetrativesexual
assault‖is,inturn,definedinSection3ofthePOCSOActinthe
followingterms:

―3.PenetrativeSexualassault-Apersonissaidto
commit―penetrativesexualassault‖if-

(a)hepenetrateshispenis,toanyextentintothe
vagina,mouth,urethraoranusofachildormakesthe
childtodosowithhimoranyotherperson;or

(b)heinserts,toanyextentanyobjectorapartofthe
body,notbeingthepenisintothevagina,theurethraor
anusofthechildormakesthechildtodosowithhimor
anyotherperson;or

CRL.A.851/2017Page42of66

(c)hemanipulatesanypartofthebodyofthechildso
astocausepenetrationintothevagina,urethra,anusor
anypartofbodyofthechildormakesthechildtodoso
withhimoranyotherperson;or

(d)heapplieshismouthtothepenis,vagina,anus,
urethraofthechildormakesthechildtodosotosuch
personoranyotherperson‖

68.Apersoncan,therefore,besaidtohavecommitted―penetrative
sexualassault‖forthepurposeofSection4ofthePOCSOAct,onlyif
suchassaultiscommittedonachild,orifachildismade,bythe
accused,todosuchact,withhimorwithanyotherperson.Ineither
case,thevictimoftheoffencehastobea―child‖.

69.Inthepresentcase,theallegation,againstthepetitioner,isof
havingcommitted―penetrativesexualassault‖onX.Forthepurposes
ofSection4ofthePOCSOAct,theaspectofwhethertheassault,on
thevictim,wasagainstthewill,orconsent,ofthevictim,is
completelyirrelevant.Solongasthecommissionof―penetrative
sexualassault‖,ona―child‖,isestablished,Section4ofthePOCSO
Actwouldapply.

70.Theappellanthassoughttocontendthattheevidenceavailable
wasinsufficienttomakeoutacaseforcommissionof―penetrative
sexualassault‖,bytheappellant,onX.

71.Inherstatement,underSection164oftheCr.P.C.(Ex.PW-
1/F),Xhasclearlystatedthattheappellantpushedherontotherear
seatofthecar,lockedthedoors,threatenedherwithgangrapeand,

CRL.A.851/2017Page43of66
afterremovingtheprosecutrix’sjeans,committedrapeonher.Itis
significantthatthewordsused,bytheprosecutrixX,inthesaid
statement,referringtothesaidact,are”balatkaarkiya‖,i.e.
―committedrape‖,ratherthananyeuphemisticexpressionsuchas
―galatkaam‖.Theprosecutrix,therefore,categoricallyand
unequivocallyallegedcommissionofrape,onher,bytheappellant,in
herstatementunderSection164oftheCr.P.C.Further,thefactthat
theMengagedin―penetrativesexualintercourse‖,withthe
prosecutrixX,isalsoborneoutformhercross-examination,during
whichshestatedthat―itwasincorrecttosuggestthat(she)hadever
donesexualintercoursepriortothedateofoffence‖

72.Tothisextent,thestatementoftheprosecutrixX,underSection
164oftheCr.P.C.,andhertestimonyduringtrial,arecompletelyin
sync.Inhertestimony,duringtrial,too,theprosecutrixX,deposingas
PW-1,asstatedthus:

―IpleadedwiththeaccusedtoallowmetogoasIhaveto
prepareformyexaminationbuthekeptoninsistingthatI
shouldhavesexwithhimonceandhewillkeepme
happy.Thereafteraccusedagainforciblytriedtoopen
myjeansandhemanagedtopulldownmyjeans.
Thereafter,accusedrapedme.‖

73.Though,therefore,theprosecutrixXwasunequivocalin
alleging,bothinherstatementunderSection164oftheCr.P.C.,as
wellasinhertestimonyduringtrial,thattheappellanthadrapedher,
nosuggestion,totheeffectthattheact,ifany,committedbythe
appellantonherdidnottantamountto―rape‖,wasputtoher;neither
wereanyquestionsputtoher,aswouldgivethelietothenotionthat

CRL.A.851/2017Page44of66
theappellanthad,infact,committedpenetrativesexualassaultonthe
prosecutrixX.

74.Mr.Singhalhassoughttorelyonthefactthatnoattemptwas
madetosecuretheevidenceofthetwoboyswhoweretravelling,with
theappellant,inhiscar.Nothingmuchcanturnonthislacuna-ifit
couldbecalledone-as,whileanalysingtheevidenceavailable,what
hastobeseeniswhethertheevidencemarshalledbytheprosecution
wassufficienttosustainthechargeagainsttheaccused,andnot
whetheranyfurtherevidencecouldhavebeenrelieduponbyit.The
otherallegedincongruities/discrepancies,aproposthestatementofthe
prosecutrixXunderSection164oftheCr.P.C.,towhichMr.Singhal
hadsoughttodrawattention,i.e.theinabilityoftheprosecutrixXto
statetheplaceofincident,whilesherememberedthefactthatthe
appellanthadshown,toher,hisvillagehouse,thefactthatsheknew
howtoopenthecar,theabsenceofcalldetailrecords,andthe
returning,bytheappellant,tothecar,toretrieveherbag,cannot
militateagainstthephysicalfactof―penetrativesexualassault‖
havingbeencommitted,ontheprosecutrixX,bytheappellant.They
donot,therefore,detractfromthevalueofthestatementofthe
prosecutrixX,asrecordedunderSection164oftheCr.P.C.,readwith
hertestimonyduringtrial,sofarasfactofcommissionof―penetrative
sexualassault‖,ontheprosecutrix,bytheappellant,isconcerned.

75.Imayhastentoclarify,atthisjuncture,that,atthispoint,Iam
dealingwiththeissueofwhethertheevidencewassufficienttomake
outacaseofcommissionof―penetrativesexualassault‖,bythe

CRL.A.851/2017Page45of66
appellant,onX,andnotonwhethertheappellantcouldbesaidto
have―raped‖X.Theaspectisbeingconsideredinthelightofthe
provisionsofthePOCSOAct,andnotinthebackdropoftheSectionIPC.The
POCSOActmakesnoreferenceto―rape‖,butrefers,instead,to
―penetrativesexualassault‖.―Rape‖,asdefinedinSection375and
Section376oftheIPC,isadistinctandseparateoffence,thoughthereis,
undoubtedly,considerableoverlapbetweenthetwo.Iwouldbe
dealing,separately,withtheaspectof―rape‖,readwithSections375
andSection376oftheIPCandmyobservations/findings,thisjuncture,areto
betreatedaslimitedtotheissueofwhetherthechargeofcommission
of―penetrativesexualassault‖,asaphysicalfact,bytheappellanton
theprosecutrixX,stoodproved,ornot.Whileexaminingthisaspect
atthispoint,Iamalsonotenteringintotheissueofageofthe
prosecutrix,towhichIwouldalludealittlelater.

76.InsofarastheMLCoftheprosecutrixXisconcerned,clearly,it
supportsthecaseoftheprosecution,ratherthanthatoftheappellant,
quatheallegationofcommissionof―penetrativesexualassault‖,by
theappellantontheprosecutrixX.ThefactthattheMLCstatesthat
thehymenoftheprosecutrixXwas―oldtorn‖,withnofreshbleeding,
isneitherherenorthere,giventhefactthattheprosecutrixwas17
yearsofage,andcouldhaverupturedherhymenforavarietyof
reasons,bythatage.Likewise,itisnotnecessarythateverycaseof
―penetrativesexualassault‖shouldresultinbleedingortearinthe
vagina.AreadingoftheMLCdisclosesthatitclearlystatesthatthe
pubichairoftheprosecutrixXwas―matted‖,andthattherewasa
white,semen-likedischargecomingoutofhervagina.Itisalso

CRL.A.851/2017Page46of66
proved,bythereportoftheFSL(Ex.PW-21/A),thattheappellant’s
semenwasfoundonthejeanswhichwasbeingwornbythe
prosecutrixX(priortotheassault)aswellasonherhandkerchief.The
submission,ofMr.Singhal,totheeffectthatthepresenceofsemenon
thesetwoitems,goestoindicatethatthesemenwaswipedoffbythe
prosecutrixherself,evenifaccepted,wouldnotdiscreditthereality
thattherewasejaculation,bytheappellant,onthesaidoccasion.This
courtcannotcloseitseyestothefactthattheincidenthadtakenplace
ontherearseatofacar,inacrampedspace.Insuchcircumstances,
thepresenceoftheappellant’ssemen,onthejeansandthe
handkerchiefoftheprosecutrixX,readwiththemedicalevidence,to
theeffectthattherewasawhite,semen-likedischargecomingoutof
hervagina,andtheevidenceoftheprosecutrix,underSection164of
theCr.P.C.and,subsequently,duringtrialare,inmyview,morethan
sufficienttoestablishthecommission,bytheappellant,of
―penetrativesexualassault‖,ontheprosecutrixX.ThisCourthas,in
itsrecentdecision,dated29thApril,2019,inSectionJitenderSharmav.
State,2019SCCOnlineDel8266,examinedthelawonthesubject,
inconsiderabledetail,whileconcludingthat,inthecaseof
commissionof―penetrativesexualassault‖onachild,thestatement
ofthechildprosecutrixcanconstitutethesoleevidencefor
conviction.TheorderoftheSupremeCourtinSectionRamIshwarRaiv.
StateofBihar,MANU/SC/1650/2017,istothesameeffect,opining,
clearly,―lawiswellsettledthatthesoleuncorroboratedtestimonyof
prosecutrixcanbeacceptedifitisbeyondreproach‖.

CRL.A.851/2017Page47of66

77.ThesubmissionofMr.Singhal,totheeffectthatno
―penetrativesexualassault‖,ontheprosecutrixX,hadbeen
committedbyhisclient,i.e.theappellantis,therefore,rejected.

78.Thecommissionofthephysicalfactof―penetrativesexual
assault‖,however,doesnotsatisfytherequirementsofSection4of
thePOCSOAct,orconstitute,solelyonthebasisthereof,anoffence
underthesaidprovision.Ithasalsotobeestablishedthattheoffence
hasbeencommittedona―child‖.

79.―Child‖isdefinedinclause(d)ofSection2ofthePOCSOAct
asmeaning―anypersonbelowtheageofeighteenyears‖.Section2
(2)ofthePOCSOAct,clarifiesthatthewordsusedtherein,butnot
definedtherein,butwhicharedefinedintheSectionIPC,SectionCr.P.C.andthe
JuvenileJustice(CareandSectionProtectionofChildren)Act,2000
(hereinafterreferredtoas―theJJAct‖)andtheSectionInformation
TechnologyAct,2000shallhavethemeaningsrespectivelyassigned
totheminthesaidCodesorActs.Imaynote,here,thatthoughtheJJ
ActstandsrepealedbytheTheJuvenileJustice(CareandSectionProtection
ofChildren)Act,2015,itwouldbethe2000JJActwhichwould
applyinthepresentcase,beingtheactinforceatthetimeof
commissionoftheoffence.

80.SectionInMahadeoS/oKerbaMaskev.StateofMaharashtra,(2013)
14SCC637-whichhasbeenfollowed,thereafter,in,interalia,SectionState
ofMadhyaPradeshv.AnoopSingh,(2015)7SCC773-itwasheld,
bytheSupremeCourt,thatRule12(3)oftheJuvenileJustice(Careand

CRL.A.851/2017Page48of66
ProtectionofChildren)Rules,2007(hereinafterreferredtoasthe―JJ
Rules‖),wasapplicableindeterminingtheageofthevictimofrape.
Rule12(3)oftheJJARulesreadsthus:

―(3)Ineverycaseconcerningachildorjuvenilein
conflictwithlaw,theagedeterminationinquiryshallbe
conductedbythecourtortheBoardor,asthecasemay
be,theCommitteebyseekingevidencebyobtaining–

(a)(i)thematriculationorequivalentcertificates,if
available;andintheabsencewhereof;

(ii)thedateofbirthcertificatefromtheschool
(otherthanaplayschool)firstattended;andinthe
absencewhereof;

(iii)thebirthcertificategivenbyacorporationor
amunicipalauthorityorapanchayat;

(b)andonlyintheabsenceofeither(i),(ii)or

(iii)ofclause(a)above,themedicalopinionwill
besoughtfromadulyconstitutedMedicalBoard,
whichwilldeclaretheageofthejuvenileorchild.
Incaseexactassessmentoftheagecannotbedone,
theCourtortheBoardor,asthecasemaybe,the
Committee,forthereasonstoberecordedbythem,
may,ifconsiderednecessary,givebenefittothe
childorjuvenilebyconsideringhis/herageon
lowersidewithinthemarginofoneyear.

and,whilepassingordersinsuchcaseshall,aftertaking
intoconsiderationsuchevidenceasmaybeavailable,or
themedicalopinion,asthecasemaybe,recordafinding
inrespectofhisageandeitheroftheevidencespecified
inanyoftheclauses(a)(i),(ii),(iii)orintheabsence
whereof,clause(b)shallbetheconclusiveproofofthe
ageasregardssuchchildorthejuvenileinconflictwith
law.‖

CRL.A.851/2017Page49of66

81.AreadingofRule12(3)oftheJJRules,readwiththe
judgmentsinMahadeo(supra)andAnoopSingh(supra),indicates
thattheevidence,onthebasisofwhichtheageofachildvictimof
rape,istobedeterminedis(i)thematriculationorequivalent
certificate,ifavailable,(ii)intheabsencethereof,thedateofbirth
certificatefromtheschoolfirstattended,and(iii)intheabsence
thereof,thebirthcertificategivenbyacorporationoramunicipal
authorityorapanchayat.Ifnoneofthesedocumentsareavailable,itis
permissibletorelyonmedicalopinion,whichhastobeobtainedfrom
adulyconstitutedmedicalboard,entrustedwiththedutyofdeclaring
theageofthejuvenileorchild.

82.Inthepresentcase,neitheristhematriculationcertificateofX,
northedateofbirthcertificatefromtheschoolfirstattendedbyher,
noristhebirthcertificateofanycorporation,municipalauthority,or
Panchayat,exhibited,beforetheLearnedASJ.Theonlyevidence,on
whichtheLearnedASJhasrelied,isthedateofbirthofthepetitioner
asenteredintheadmissionform,submittedatthetimeofher
admissionintheKendriyaVidyalaya,VikasPuri.Learnedcounselfor
theappellantisundoubtedlyjustifiedinpointingoutthataglanceat
thesaidadmissionform(Ex.PW-5/A)itselfdisclosesthatthe
KendriyaVidyalaya,VikasPuriwasnottheschoolfirstattendedby
theappellant,asshehad,priorthereto,beingstudyingintheAFVidya
Mandir.

83.Inviewthereof,noneofthecategoriesofevidence
contemplatedbyClause(a)ofRule12(3)oftheJJRulesisexhibited,

CRL.A.851/2017Page50of66
beforetheLearnedASJ,inthepresentcase,soastoenablea
conclusiveidentificationoftheageoftheprosecutrixX.

84.EvenontheMLCoftheX,theageof17years,asentered,does
notappeartobetheresultofanyscientificorlegallyacceptable
examinationortest.Itneedstobeborneinmindthatthepresentcase
isnotoneinwhichtheprosecutrixwasofanagewhichwouldmakeit
apparentthatshewasbelowthestatutoryageofeighteen,stipulatedin
thePOCSOAct.Wheretheageofthevictimisbetweenseventeen
andeighteenyearsofage,invocationofthePOCSOActwouldbe
justifiedonlyifthereisclinchingevidence,ascontemplatedbythe
Rule12(3)oftheJJRules,totheeffectthatthevictimislessthan18
yearsofage.

85.TheLearnedASJ,onthisaspect,holdsthat,inviewofthedate
ofbirthenteredintheadmissionformoftheprosecutrix,readwiththe
evidenceofPW-5,therecouldbenodisputeregardingtheageofthe
prosecutrix.Thisfinding,obviously,cannotsustain,inviewofthe
legalpositionenunciatedinMahadeo(supra)andAnoopSingh
(supra),whichrequirestheissuetobeexaminedinthelightofRule
12(3)oftheJJRules.TheLearnedASJ,clearly,hasnotdoneso.
ExaminingtheissueinthelightofRule12(3)oftheJJRules,thereis,
onthefaceofit,noconclusiveevidence,toindicatethatthe
prosecutrixXwaslessthaneighteenyearsofageatthetimeofher
allegedsexualassaultbytheappellant.Thatbeingso,theconviction,
oftheappellant,underthePOCSOAct,cannotbesaidtobejustified,

CRL.A.851/2017Page51of66
onthebasisofthematerialexhibitedbeforetheLearnedASJ,andon
whichhehaschosentoplacereliance.

86.Atthesametime,Ifind,amongthedocumentswhichwerefiled
withthechargesheetbutwerenotexhibitedduringtheproceedings
beforetheLearnedASJ,aSecondarySchoolExaminationCertificate
RollNo.8171942,oftheprosecutrixX,indicatingherdateofbirthas
14thOctober,1995,aswellasaCertificate,issuedbyGauravSaxena,
anOfficerinthe―AMSE,AF‖,certifyingthatthedateofbirthofX,
aspertheservicedocumentheldbythesaidunit,was14thOctober,
1995.Forsomeinscrutablereason,thesedocuments,whichareof
primalsignificancewhiledecidingtheapplicability,tothepresent
case,oftheprovisionsofthePOCSOAct,wereneitherexhibitednor
proved.Whileitbafflescomprehensionastowhythesedocuments
wereneverexhibitedbytheprosecutionbeforetheLearnedASJ,the
saiddefaultcannotbepermittedtobeusedasawindfallinfavourof
theappellant-if,infact,heisguiltyofcommissionoftheoffence
contemplatedbySection4ofthePOCSOAct.Iamoftheviewthat,
inthecircumstances,theLearnedASJhastobedirectedtoexhibitthe
saiddocuments(figuringatpages305and309oftherecordofthe
LearnedASJ)and,thereafter,provide,totheprosecution,achanceto
provethesaiddocuments(shouldtheysochoosetodo),aswellasthe
defenceanopportunitytodisprovethesame.TheLearnedASJwould
berequiredtostrictlyabidebyRule12(3)oftheJJRules.Itisonly
thereafterthatadecisioncouldbetaken,onewayortheother,asto
whethertheprosecutrixXwas,orwasnot,lessthan18yearsofage
onthedateofcommissionoftheallegedoffenceofsexualassault,on

CRL.A.851/2017Page52of66
her,bytheappellantand,consequently,whethertheprovisionsofthe
POCSOActwould,orwouldnot,apply.

87.While,therefore,affirmingthefinding,oftheLearnedASJ,to
theeffectthatassault,withinthemeaningofSection3ofthePOCSO
Acthas,infact,beenperpetrated,bytheappellantontheprosecutrix
X,thedecision,onwhethersuchassaultwouldtantamountto
―penetrativesexualassault‖,punishableunderSection4ofthesaid
Act,wouldnecessarilydependonaconclusivefinding,regardingthe
actualdateofbirthoftheprosecutrix.Itwouldbenecessary,therefore,
fortheLearnedASJtoundertakethisexercise,afterexhibitingthetwo
documentsreferredtoinpara81supra,andassessingtheirevidentiary
value,alsointhelightoftheothermaterialavailableonrecord.

88.Thereisanotheraspectofthematter.Eveniftheappellant
weretobeacquittedoftheoffenceunderSection4ofthePOCSOAct,
itwouldstillremaintobeconsideredastowhetherhewouldbeguilty
oftheoffenceunderSection376oftheIPC,whichhasbeeninvoked
intheFIR(Ex.PW-9/A),butfindsnomentioninthechargesheet
issuedtotheappellant.

89.Sections375andSection376oftheIPCreadthus:

―375.Rape.–Amanissaidtocommit―rape‖ifhe-

(a)penetrateshispenis,toanyextent,intothevagina,
mouth,urethraoranusofawomanormakeshertodoso
withhimoranyotherperson;or

(b)inserts,toanyextent,anyobjectorapartofthe
body,notbeingthepenis,intothevagina,theurethraor

CRL.A.851/2017Page53of66
anusofawomanormakeshertodosowithhimorany
otherperson;or

(c)manipulatesanypartofthebodyofawomansoas
tocausepenetrationintothevagina,urethra,anusorany
partofbodyofsuchwomanormakeshertodosowith
himoranyotherperson;or

(d)applieshismouthtothevagina,anus,urethraofa
womanormakeshertodosowithhimoranyother
person,underthecircumstancesfallingunderanyofthe
followingsevendescriptions:-

First.–Againstherwill.

Secondly.–Withoutherconsent.

Thirdly.–Withherconsent,whenherconsenthasbeen
obtainedbyputtingheroranypersoninwhomsheis
interested,infearofdeathorofhurt.

Fourthly.–Withherconsent,whenthemanknowsthat
heisnotherhusband,andthatherconsentisgiven
becauseshebelievesthatheisanothermantowhomshe
isorbelievesherselftobelawfullymarried.

Fifthly.–Withherconsent,when,atthetimeofgiving
suchconsent,byreasonofunsoundnessofmindor
intoxicationortheadministrationbyhimpersonallyor
throughanotherofanystupefyingorunwholesome
substance,sheisunabletounderstandthenatureand
consequencesofthattowhichshegivesconsent.

Sixthly.–Withorwithoutherconsent,whensheis
undersixteenyearsofage.

Seventhly.–Whensheisunabletocommunicate
consent.

Explanation1.–Forthepurposesofthissection,
―vagina‖shallalsoincludelabiamajora.

CRL.A.851/2017Page54of66

Explanation2.–Consentmeansanunequivocal
voluntaryagreementwhenthewomanbywords,gestures
oranyformofverbalornon-verbalcommunication,
communicateswillingnesstoparticipateinthespecific
sexualact:

Providedthatawomanwhodoesnotphysically
resisttotheactofpenetrationshallnotbythereasononly
ofthatfact,beregardedasconsentingtothesexual
activity.

Exception1.–Amedicalprocedureorinterventionshall
notconstituterape.

Explanation2.–Sexualintercourseorsexualactsbya
manwithhisownwife,thewifenotbeingunderfifteen
yearsofage,isnotrape.

―376.Punishmentforrape.–

(1)Whoever,exceptinthecasesprovidedforinsub-
section(2),commitsrape,shallbepunishedwithrigorous
imprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichshall
notbelessthantenyears,butwhichmayextendto
imprisonmentforlife,andshallalsobeliabletofine.

(2)Whoever--
(a)beingapoliceofficer,commitsrape,
(i)withinthelimitsofthepolicestationto
whichsuchpoliceofficerisappointed;

(ii)orinthepremisesofanystationhouse;or

(iii)onawomaninsuchpoliceofficer'scustody
orinthecustodyofapoliceofficersubordinateto
suchpoliceofficer;or

(b)beingapublicservant,commitsrapeonawoman
insuchpublicservant'scustodyorinthecustodyofa
publicservantsubordinatetosuchpublicservant;or

CRL.A.851/2017Page55of66

(c)beingamemberofthearmedforcesdeployedinan
areabytheCentraloraStateGovernmentcommitsrape
insucharea;or

(d)beingonthemanagementoronthestaffofajail,
remandhomeorotherplaceofcustodyestablishedbyor
underanylawforthetimebeinginforceorofawomen's
orchildren'sinstitution,commitsrapeonanyinmateof
suchjail,remandhome,placeorinstitution;or

(e)beingonthemanagementoronthestaffofa
hospital,commitsrapeonawomaninthathospital;or

(f)beingarelative,guardianorteacherof,oraperson
inapositionoftrustorauthoritytowardsthewoman,
commitsrapeonsuchwoman;or

(g)commitsrapeduringcommunalorsectarian
violence;or

(h)commitsrapeonawomanknowinghertobe
pregnant;or

(j)commitsrape,onawomanincapableofgiving
consent;or

(k)beinginapositionofcontrolordominanceovera
woman,commitsrapeonsuchwoman;or

(l)commitsrapeonawomansufferingfrommentalor
physicaldisability;or

(m)whilecommittingrapecausesgrievousbodily
harmormaimsordisfiguresorendangersthelifeofa
woman;or

(n)commitsraperepeatedlyonthesamewoman,

shallbepunishedwithrigorousimprisonmentforaterm
whichshallnotbelessthantenyears,butwhichmay
extendtoimprisonmentforlife,whichshallmean

CRL.A.851/2017Page56of66
imprisonmentfortheremainderofthatperson'snatural
life,andshallalsobeliabletofine.

(3)Whoever,commitsrapeonawomanundersixteen
yearsofageshallbepunishedwithrigorous
imprisonmentforatermwhichshallnotbelessthan
twentyyears,butwhichmayextendtoimprisonmentfor
life,whichshallmeanimprisonmentfortheremainderof
thatperson'snaturallife,andshallalsobeliabletofine:

Providedthatsuchfineshallbejustandreasonableto
meetthemedicalexpensesandrehablitationofthe
victim:

Providedfurtherthatanyfineimposedunderthissub-
sectionshallbepaidtothevictim.

Explanation.--Forthepurposesofthissub-section,--

(a)―armedforces‖meansthenaval,militaryandair
forcesandincludesanymemberoftheArmedForces
constitutedunderanylawforthetimebeinginforce,
includingtheparamilitaryforcesandanyauxiliaryforces
thatareunderthecontroloftheCentralGovernment,or
theStateGovernment;

(b)―hospital‖meanstheprecinctsofthehospitaland
includestheprecinctsofanyinstitutionforthereception
andtreatmentofpersonsduringconvalescenceorof
personsrequiringmedicalattentionorrehabilitation;

(c)―policeofficer‖shallhavethesamemeaningas
assignedtotheexpression―police‖undertheSectionPoliceAct,
1861;

(d)―women'sorchildren'sinstitution‖meansan
institution,whethercalledanorphanageorahomefor
neglectedwomenorchildrenorawidow'shomeoran
institutioncalledbyanyothername,whichisestablished
andmaintainedforthereceptionandcareofwomenor
children.

CRL.A.851/2017Page57of66

90.TheFIRinvokesSection376(2)oftheIPC.Itisobviousthat,
evenifthecaseoftheprosecutionwouldbetreatedasproved,no
justification,forinvokingsub-section(2)ofSection376oftheIPC,
exists,forthereasonthat(a)theappellantwasnotapoliceofficer,(b)
theappellantwasnotapublicservant,(c)theappellantwasnotthe
memberofanyArmedForce,(d)theappellantwasnotonthe
managementoronthestaffofanyjail,remandhomeorotherplaceof
custody;neitherwastheprosecutrixXtheinmateofanysuchplace,

(e)theappellantwasnotonthemanagementofthestaffofahospital,

(f)theappellantwasnotarelative,guardianorteacherofthe
prosecutrixX,(g)theappellantdidnotcommittheallegedactofrape
duringcommunal/sectarianviolence,(h)Xwasnotpregnant,(i)X
wasnotunder16yearsofage,(j)Xwasnotincapableofgiving
consenttotheact,(k)theappellantwasnotinapositionofcontrolor
dominanceoverX,(l)Xwasnotsufferingfromanymentalor
physicaldisability,(m)theappellanthadnotcausedanygrievous
bodilyharm,ormaimed,disfiguredorendangeredthelifeofXand(n)
theappellanthadnotcommittedrape,repeatedly,onX.Ifatall,
therefore,theappellantwouldhavebeenchargedonlyunderSection
376(1)oftheIPC.

91.DependingontheageoftheprosecutrixX,theingredientsof
Section376(1)oftheIPCandSection4ofthePOCSOActarenotthe
same.IncasetheprosecutrixXisfoundtobelessthan18yearsof
age,thentheappellantwould,incasehehasactuallycommitted
―penetrativesexualassault‖onX,beliableforcommissionofthe

CRL.A.851/2017Page58of66
offenceof―rape‖asdefinedinSection375oftheIPC,readwith
Clause―Sixthly‖thereunder,aswellasunderSection4ofthePOCSO
Act.―Penetrativesexualassault‖,asdefinedinthePOCSOActwould,
ipsofacto,alsoamountto―rape‖withinthemeaningofSection375of
theIPC,ifitiscommittedonavictimwhoisunder18yearsofage,
withorwithoutherconsent.(The―ageofconsent‖wasraisedfrom16
to18bytheamendment,toSection375oftheIPC,assubstitutedby
Section9ofTheCriminalLaw(Amendment)Act,2013,whichwould
applyinthepresentcase,thedateofoffencebeing26thFebruary,
2013.)Assuch,ifitisfoundthattheageoftheprosecutrixXwas
lessthan18,theappellantwould,byvirtueofthatsolefact,readwith
thefindingsenteredbymehereinabove,beguiltyofhaving
committedtheoffencecontemplatedbySection4ofthePOCSOAct,
andnorequirementofreferring,toSection375or376oftheSectionIPC
would,therefore,survive.

92.If,however,theevidenceisfoundtobeinsufficienttosustaina
conclusivefindingthattheprosecutrixXwaslessthan18yearsof
age,asalleged,whileSection4ofthePOCSOActwould
automaticallystandeviscerated,itwouldremaintobeconsideredasto
whethertheappellanthad,orhadnot,committedtheoffenceunder
Sections375andSection376oftheIPC,as,forsustainingafindingofan
offence,undertheseprovisions,havingbeencommitted,ithastobe
establishedthattheactwasagainstthewill,orwiththeconsent,ofthe
prosecutrix.Ashasalreadynoticedhereinabove,thoughSection376
(albeitsub-section(2)thereof)wasinvokedintheFIR(Ex.PW-9/A),
noreference,tothesaidprovision,findsplaceinthechargesheet

CRL.A.851/2017Page59of66
issuedconsequentthereto.InviewofSection464oftheCr.P.C.,
however,thislacunacannotbeallowedtoaffecttheultimateoutcome
oftheproceedings.Inexerciseofthepowersconferredbysub-section
(2)ofthesaidprovision,therefore,Ideemitappropriatetodirectthe
LearnedASJtoframeacharge,ofcommissionofoffence,bythe
appellant,underSection376oftheIPCand,thereafter,recommence
thetrial,afresh,fromthesaidstage.Inviewofmyfinding,above,that
―penetrativesexualassault‖,ascontemplatedbySection3ofthe
POCSOActhad,infact,beencommittedbytheappellantonthe
prosecutrixX,allthatwouldberequiredtobeexamined,while
assessingtheapplicability,tothefactsofthecase,ofSection375/Section376
oftheIPC,wouldbewhetherthefactsattractClause―firstly‖and/or
―secondly‖ofSection375,i.e.,whethertheacthadbeencommitted
againstthewill,orwiththeconsent,oftheprosecutrixX.Needlessto
say,theoccasionforventuringintotheterrainofSections375/Section376of
theIPCwouldariseonlyifthesubmission,ofMr.Singhal,regarding
theinsufficiencyoftheavailableevidence,toholdthattheprosecutrix
Xwaslessthan18yearsofage,isfoundtodeserveacceptance.

Re.Section342,IPC

93.Section342oftheIPCdealswith―punishmentforwrongful
confinement‖,andreadsthus:

―342.Punishmentforwrongfulconfinement.-

Whoeverwrongfullyconfinesanypersonshallbe
punishedwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionfora
termwhichmayextendtooneyear,orwithfinewhich
mayextendtoonethousandrupees,orwithboth.‖

CRL.A.851/2017Page60of66
―Wrongfulconfinement‖is,inturn,defined,inSection340ofthe
IPC,thus:

―340.Wrongfulconfinement.-Whoeverwrongfully
restrainsanypersoninsuchamannerastopreventthat
personfromproceedingsbeyondcertaincircumscribing
limits,issaid―wrongfullytoconfine‖thatperson.‖

94.Ihavealreadyheld,hereinabove,thattheactof―penetrative
sexualassault‖,withinthemeaningofSection3ofthePOCSOAct,
wascommittedbytheappellantontheprosecutrixX,ontherearseat
ofhiscar.TheprosecutrixX,inherstatementunderSection164of
theCr.P.C.,aswellasinhertestimonybeforetheLearnedASJduring
trial,clearlyallegedthattheappellanthadpushedXontotherearseat
ofthecar,lockedthedoorsofthecarandcommittedthesaidact.In
viewthereof,theoffenceofwrongfullyrestrainingtheprosecutrixX,
withtheintentofpreventingherfromescapingfromthecar,
obviouslystandsprovedagainsttheappellant.Incidentally,the
sentenceofoneyear'srigourousimprisonment,awardedbythe
LearnedASJtotheappellant,forcommittingtheoffenceunder
Section342oftheIPC,alreadystandssufferedbyhim.

Re.Section367oftheIPC

95.Section367oftheIPCreadsthus:

―367.Kidnappingorabductinginordertosubject
persontogrievoushurt,slavery,etc.-Whoever
kidnapsorabductsanypersoninorderthatsuchperson
maybesubjected,ormaybesodisposedofastobeput
indangerofbeingsubjecttogrievoushurt,orslavery,or
totheunnaturallustofanyperson,orknowingittobe

CRL.A.851/2017Page61of66
likelythatsuchpersonwillbesosubjectedordisposed
of,shallbepunishedwithimprisonmentofeither
descriptionforatermwhichmayextendto10years,and
shallalsobeliabletofine.‖

―Kidnapping‖isdefined,inSection359oftheIPC,as―oftwokinds:

kidnappingfromIndia,andkidnappingfromlawfulguardianship.Itis
nobody'scasethattheprosecutrixXwaskidnappedfromIndia.
―Kidnappingfromlawfulguardianship‖isdefined,inSection361of
theIPC,inthefollowingterms:

―361.Kidnappingfromlawfulguardianship.-
Whoevertakesorenticesanyminorunder16yearsof
ageifamale,orunder18yearsofageifafemale,orany
personofunsoundmind,outofthekeepingofthelawful
guardianofsuchminororpersonofunsoundmind,
withouttheconsentofsuchguardian,issaidtokidnap
suchminororpersonfromlawfulguardianship.

Explanation.-Thewords―lawfulguardian‖inthis
sectionincludeanypersonlawfullyentrustedwiththe
careorcustodyofsuchminororotherperson.

Exception.-Thissectiondoesnotextendtotheactof
anypersonwhoingoodfaithbelieveshimselftobethe
fatherofanillegitimatechild,orwhoingoodfaith
believeshimselftobeentitledtolawfulcustodyofsuch
child,unlesssuchactiscommittedforanimmoralor
unlawfulpurpose.‖

―Abduction‖isdefined,inSection362,thus:

―362.Abduction.-Whoeverbyforcecompels,orby
anydeceitfulmeansinduces,anypersontogofromany
place,issaidtoabductthatperson.‖

CRL.A.851/2017Page62of66

96.Onplainfacts,itcannotbesaidthattheappellant,byforce,
compelledtheprosecutrixX,orinducedher,bydeceitfulmeans,togo
fromanyplace.Assuch,nooffenceof―abduction‖canbesaidtobe
madeoutagainsttheappellant.

97.Insofarastheoffenceof―kidnapping‖,isconcerned,byvirtue
oftheexpresswordscontainedinSection361oftheIPC,thesaid
offencewouldbemadeout,againsttheappellant,quatheprosecutrix
X,onlyifitisestablishedthattheprosecutrixXisunder18yearsof
age.Wecomeback,therefore,tosquareone.Thisaspectwouldalso
havetobereconsideredbytheLearnedASJ,afterarrivingatthe
conclusionregardingtheageoftheprosecutrix,inthetermsalready
setouthereinabove.

Conclusion

98.Theappealis,therefore,partlyallowed,inthefollowingterms:

(i)Thefinding,oftheLearnedASJ,totheeffectthatthe
appellanthadcommitted―penetrativesexualassault‖onthe
prosecutrixX,withinthemeaningofSection3ofthePOCSO
Act,isupheld.

(ii)However,asthefinding,oftheLearnedASJ,thatthe
prosecutrixXwaslessthan18yearsofage,isnotbasedon
sustainableevidence,itisquashedandsetaside.Consequently,
theconvictionoftheappellant,underSection4ofthePOCSO
Act,andunderSection367oftheIPC,alongwiththesentences

CRL.A.851/2017Page63of66
imposedontheappellantforcommissionofthesaidoffences,
arealsoquashedandsetaside.

(iii)TheLearnedASJisdirectedtore-examinetheissueof
theageoftheprosecutrix,keepinginmindtheobservations
containedinparas79to83ofthisjudgmentsupra.

(iv)Consequenttohisdecision/findings,regarding(iii)
hereinabove,theLearnedASJwouldreconsidertheissueof
conviction,oftheappellant,underSection4ofthePOCSOAct,
andSection367oftheIPC.

(v)Intheeventoftheappellantbeingacquittedofthecharge
ofhavingcommittedtheoffenceunderSection4ofthePOCSO
Act,theLearnedASJshallproceedtoframeanadditional
charge,againsttheappellant,regardingthecommissionof
offenceunderSection376(1)oftheSectionIPC.TheLearnedASJwill
proceed,inthatevent,toretrytheappellant,onthesaidoffence.
There-trialshalltakeplaceinaccordancewithSection217of
theCr.P.C.-acourseofactionadvocatedbytheHighCourtof
AllahabadinitsjudgmentinSectionKrishnav.StateofU.P.,2017
(100)ACC774;MANU/UP/1343/2017,withwhichIexpress
myrespectfulconcurrence.Needlesstosay,shouldtheLearned
ASJconvicttheappellantunderSection376(1)and/orSection
367oftheIPC,heshallalsoproceedtodecidetheissueof
sentencetobeawardedtotheappellantconsequentthereto.

CRL.A.851/2017Page64of66

(vi)TheconvictionoftheappellantunderSection342ofthe
IPC,andthesentenceawarded,inthatregard,totheappellant,
bythelearnedASJ,areupheld.

99.TheLearnedDistrictJudgeisdirectedtoassignthecasetothe
appropriatejurisdictionalASJandinformthepartiesaccordingly.The
partieswouldappearbeforethejurisdictionalASJon21stMay,2019.
TheLearnedASJisdirectedtoproceedasexpeditiouslyaspossiblein
thematterandtoarriveatafinaljudgment,incompliancewiththe
abovedirections,preferablywithinaperiodof6monthsfromthedate
ofpresentation,beforehim,ofacertifiedcopyofthisjudgment.

100.Atthisstage,Learnedcounselfortheappellantpraysthathis
clientmaybegrantedbailduringpendencyofthedenovoproceedings
beforetheLearnedASJ.

101.Theappellanthad,withtheappeal,filedanapplicationforgrant
ofbail,whichwasnotpressed,astheappealwasbeingtakenupfor
hearing.Hehasalreadysufferedsixyearseightmonthsincarceration,
outofthetotalperiodof10yearsRI,whichwasimposedonhim.Iam
inclined,therefore,tograntbailtotheappellantinthepresentcase,
subjecttohisfurnishingsuretybondof₹25,000/-orlikeamountto
thesatisfactionofthelearnedASJ.Thiswould,needlesstosay,be
subjecttotheappellantnotrequiringtobeincarceratedinanyother
caseandremainsubjecttotheoutcomeofthedenovoproceedings
beforetheLearnedASJ.

CRL.A.851/2017Page65of66

102.Theregistryisdirectedtoreturnthetrialcourtrecord
expeditiously.

C.HARISHANKAR,J
MAY06,2019/dsn

CRL.A.851/2017Page66of66

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation