IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved On: 11.03.2019
Judgment Delivered On: 29.04.2019
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …… Petitioner
JITENDER SHARMA …… Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with SI Sandeep, PS- Begumpur, Inspector
Suman Kumari, Community Policing Cell, Outer District
For the Respondent : Mr. Manu Sharma, Ms. Mahima Wahi and Mr. Kartik Khanna,
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. There can be no manner of doubt that a conviction for committing
penetrative sexual assault can be sustained on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix. [Ref: State (GNCT Of Delhi) vs. Vicky @ Karan Anr.
reported as 2019 (1) JCC 322; State (GNCT Of Delhi) vs. Kuldeep @ Kallu
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 1 of 12
Anr. reported as 2019 (1) JCC 298 (Del); Boby vs. State, Crl.A
1119/2014; Vishnu (alias) Undrya vs. State of Maharashtra reported as
(2006) 1 SCC 283; State of M.P vs. Dayal Sahu, reported as (2005) 8 SCC
122)]. However, it is equally well established that, the testimony of the
prosecutrix must be creditworthy and inspire confidence.
2. The State has instituted the present petition seeking grant of leave to
assail the judgment dated 30.05.2018, in Session Case No.21/2013, arising
out of FIR No.19/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject FIR’) under
Sectionsections 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sectionsections 04 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’) registered at
Police Station-Begumpur, Delhi; whereby the respondent Jitender Sharma
was acquitted of the aforementioned charges.
3. The gravamen of the charge, for which the appellant has been
convicted, is for having committed rape upon his own daughter/the
prosecutrix, a girl aged about 13 years, at the time of commission of the
4. The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on
17.01.2013 vide DD No.26A, on a PCR call was recorded regarding rape by
father with his daughter, aged 8 years at H.No B-1970, Kashmiri Block, Jain
Nagar, Delhi. SI Dinesh along with Ct. reached the house where the mother
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 2 of 12
of the victim met and reported rape by her accused husband with two minor
daughters V aged 8 years and M aged 13 years. NGO was called and victims
were taken to SGM hospital where they were medically examined and the
complainant S gave her statement that she is a house wife and has four
daughters and a son and her husband runs a factory. On 11.01.2013, her
husband committed wrong act with daughter V after taking her to some other
room and also threatened her not to tell anything to anyone or else she will
be killed. On 13.01.2013 when she was cleaning the house, she found one
blood stained underwear of victim V under the bed. On inquiry, she told that
her father lifted her from the bed in the night and lied her on a sofa and gave
her some tablet after which she was feeling sleepy and then he inserted his
‘shushu wali jagah in her shushu wali jagah’ and when she was feeling pain
then her father again brought her back to the bed. She was conferring about
this incident with her family members and did not report the commission of
the offence to the police, but when her elder daughter M who was living
with her maternal grandmother came and informed that, her father
committed wrong act with her, as well, which the former did not disclose
because of fear, the complainant came to Police Station and lodged the FIR.
After medical examination of the victim M, her statement u/s 164 SectionCr.P.C.
was recorded. IO collected the date of birth proof of the victim and sent
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 3 of 12
sample (cotton wool swab on a wooden stick of victim M ) to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as ‘FSL’). The accused was
arrested in between and was medically examined and while awaiting FSL
result, the present chargesheet was filed.
5. By way of order dated 20.05.2013, a charge was framed against the
appellant for the commission of offences u/s 4 of POCSO Act read with u/s
376SectionIPC and u/s 328 SectionIPC along with Sectionsection 506 IPC to which the appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution
examined as many as 15 witnesses, whereafter the statement of the accused
u/s 313 SectionCr.P.C was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and
stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case by his wife, the mother
of the child victim M, due to matrimonial dispute. The Appellant chose to
examine three witness in his defence including himself.
7. There is no gainsaying the fact that, the star witness of the prosecution
is the victim M. The complainant PW-13 (mother of prosecutrix), it is
observed, subsequently turned hostile.
8. It would, therefore, be necessary and appropriate to extract the
victim’s testimony in extenso:
“Q. Beta batao kya hua tha ?
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 4 of 12
Ans. Papa ne galat kaam kiya tha
Q. Kab kiya tha ?
Ans. Raat ko jab hum so rahe the .
Q. Kya galat kaam kiya tha ?
Ans. Papa ne apni toilet wali jagah meri toilet wali
jagah me dal di.
Q. Phir kya hua ?
Ans. Kuch nai.
Q. Apko kuch pareshani hui ?
Ans. Dard hua
Q. Apne kisi ko batay?
Ans. Nahi. Mummy ko baad me batay.
Q. Mummy ko tab kyu nahi bataya ?
Ans. Papa ne dhamkaya tha ki who hume jaan se mar
Q. Kisko mar denge?
Ans. Mujhe aur mummy ko.
Q. Kya papa ne pehle bhi kabhi aisa galat kaam apke
sath kiya tha ?
Ans. Kai bar
Q. Kya aap pehle bhi court me aaye the ?
Q. Kya tab bhi apne yeh sab bataya tha ?
[ At this stage, the witness has been shown her
statement u/s 164 SectionCr.P.C Ex-PW-2/B andafter
reading the same, she states that said statement was
given by her . she also identifies her singnatures at
point “A” thereupon. ]
XXXX By Sh. Ravi Kant Singh, Learned counsel for
Q. Aap Kashmiri colony se pehle kaha rehte the ?
Ans. Shastri nagar
Q. Aapko waha ka pura address pata hai ?
Ans. WZ-45, NimriVillage .
Q. Who ghar aapka apna tha?
Q.Woh ghar kyun bechna pada?
Ans. Pata nahi
Q.Aapko mummy jyada pyar karti hai yah papa ?
Ans . Mummy
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 5 of 12
Q.Aap kiska kehna jyada mante ho papa ka yah
Q. kya apke mummy papa me jhgada hota tha ?
Ans. Kabhi kabhi hota tha
Q. Kisbaat par hota tha ?
Ans. Pata nahi
Q.Jab mummy papa ka jhagda hota tha toh kya who
kabhi police station bhi gaye the ?
Q. Apke papa apke sath kab se galat kam kar rahe hai /
Ans. Pichle saal se (2012)
Q. Kya aap ko mummy ne kabhi koi dawai dil wayi
Ans. Jab bimar hote the tab dawai dil wati thi
Q.kya aapka kabhi operation hua hai ?
Ans. Ha, harniya ka
Q. kya Vanshika ka bhi harniya ka operation hua hai ?
Ans. Pata nahi
Q.Kya apne Vanshika ke paith par operation ka Nishan
dekha hai ?
Q. Kya aap sab bhai behein school jate hai ?
Ans . Ha
Q.Apka school kitne baje shuru hota hai ?
Ans. Garmiyo me 7 baje sur sardiyo me 7:30 baje.
Q.School jane ke liye apko kaun tyar karta hai.
Mummy yah papa ?
Ans. Mein khud tayarhoti hu
Q.Aapke bhai behen ko kaun tayar kerta hai ?
Ans. Who bhi khud tayar hote hai.
Q.Savere ka khana kaun banata hai ?
Q.Kya apko ghar ka kaam aata hai ?
Q. Kya kya kaam aata hai ?
Ans. Sab kaam aata hai, zaroo pocha bartan par kapde
Q. Ghar ka kaam kaun kerta hai?
Ans. Mummy karti thi. Aap mummy bimar rehti hai
toh mere se choti behein maddad kerti hai.
Court Ques. Aap maddad nahi kerte ho ?
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 6 of 12
Ans. Mein nani ke har rehti hu.
Court Ques. Aap nani ke ghar kab se reh rahe ho ?
Ans. August, 2012.
Court Ques. Toh papa galat kaam kab karte the ?
Ans. Uss se pehle( august, 2012 se pehle)
Q. Jab papa galat kaam karte the tab mummy ke alawa
ghar me kisi aur bade ko apne bataya ?
Ans. Gharme mummy ke alawa aur kisi ko bataya nahi
Q.Kya papa ne shastri nagar ke ghar me bhi galat kam
Q.kya papa apko nashe ki goli khilate the ?
(Emphasis supplied )
9. On a conspectus of the material evidence on record, there are two
issues that arise for consideration in the present leave petition.
10. The first issue that needs determination is, as to whether the
prosecution has been able to establish the date of birth of the victim, so as to
bring home the guilt of the accused under the ambit of the provisions of the
11. The second issue upon which the determination of the present leave
petition hinges, is as to whether the testimony of the victim can be said to be
creditworthy and reliable.
12. Insofar as, the first question is concerned, it is an admitted position
that, the IO (PW-15) has proved on record the date of birth certificate issued
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 7 of 12
by Municipal Corporation of Delhi qua victim M [Ex.Pw-15/L]. As per the
certificate, the date of birth of victim M is 27.12.1999. Evidently no cross –
examination of the IO on behalf of the accused in respect of the said
document. The prosecution has therefore proved that the victim was a minor
at the time of commission of the alleged sexual assault, by the accused.
13. Insofar as, the more significant second issue is concerned, the learned
Trial Court, after examining the material evidence on record and in particular
the testimony of the victim and after hearing counsel for the parties, found
that there were substantial material improvements in the statement of victim
M, i.e. PW-4, which have the effect of rendering her testimony highly
14. In her statement made to the police on 18.01.2012 Ex.PW-15/D victim
M stated that her father took her to another room, removed her clothes,
touched her here and there and threatened to kill her mother. However, in
her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as well as, her testimony
in Court, the victim M gave an altogether different story. In her statement
made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the learned MM she asserted that her
father had committed wrong acts with her on numerous occasions, after
removing their clothes and that he used to insert his peshab wali jagah in her
peshab wali jagah. In her subsequent testimony in Court, she made
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 8 of 12
considerable improvement and contradicted herself by specifically stating in
her cross-examination that her father had never given her any intoxicating
medicine or tablet, which belies her earlier testimony to the effect that he
used to administer some tablets to her.
15. Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
vehemently urge that, based on the testimony of the victim, the offences for
which the accused was charged, by the prosecution had been proved beyond
a reasonable doubt.
16. Mr. Ravi Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken us
through the testimony of the prosecutrix in Court as hereinbefore extracted,
as well as, her statement made under Sectionsection 161 of Cr.P.C at the concerned
police station on 18.01.2013 [Ex.Pw-15/d]; and before the Magistrate
concerned under Sectionsection 164 of Cr.P.C on 18.01.2013 [ Ex.Pw-2/B], to urge
that, the same is cogent, consistent and creditworthy.
17. Per Contra, The counsel for the respondent would submit that there
are substantial material improvements in the statement of Victim M which
renders her testimony highly unreliable as, in her statement to police she
stated that accused fondle her here and there, whereas in her statement to
Ld.MM u/s 164 SectionCr.P.C stated that her father had committed wrong act with
her many times after removing his and her clothes and he use to insert “his
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 9 of 12
peshab wali jagah (penis) in her peshab wali jagah (vagina)”. Also, victim
M categorically denies administration of any soporific tablet/medicine to her
by the respondent.
18. The counsel for the respondent would also urge that the victim M is
stated to have been residing with her maternal grandmother post the alleged
incidents of sexual assault, and the latter who could have been a material
witness has not been examined by the prosecution.
19. Further, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) result [Ex.Pw-PX] is
not conclusive. In this regard, it would be apt and necessary to extract
relevant finding in it as hereunder:
“Exhibit ‘1c’: Cotton wool swab on wooden stick( of
Exhibit ‘5’: Brown Gauze cloth piece described as ‘Blood
sample’ ( of accused)
Exhibit ‘1c’, i.e.: Cotton wool swab on wooden
stick ( of Prosecutrix Mansi)
it could not be compared with that of exhibit
‘5’, i.e. blood stained gauze cloth piece (of
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, in our considered view, the
prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. There is no gainsaying in position of law and there can be no quarrel
with the proposition that when the testimony of the prosecutrix is
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 10 of 12
unimpeached and beyond reproach, the conviction of the appellant can be
sustained based solely on it. However, in the instant case the statement of the
prosecutrix is shaky, inconsistent and cannot be relied upon in addition to the
incident itself being reported 6 months after the alleged commission of the
crime. Further the report of FSL report is inconclusive and does not in any
manner establish the commission of the offence by the respondent.
21. In the present case, on a cumulative reading and appreciation of the
entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the evidence of
the prosecution is unworthy of acceptance, since the same is found to be
replete with infirmities and not supported by the medical evidence on record.
22. There is no gainsaying the legal position that when two views are
possible, the appellant court should not reverse a judgment of acquittal,
merely because another view was possible. [Ref: SectionK. Prakashan vs. P.K.
Surenderan, reported as (2008) 1 SCC 258] Where two views are
reasonably possible from the very same evidence, the prosecution cannot said
to have prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. [Ref: SectionT. Subramanian vs.
State of Tamil Nadu reported as (2006) 1 SCC 401] If the High Court on
reappraisal of the evidence considers the possibility of another view being
reasonably be plausible, then the view which favours the accused should be
adopted unless the High Court returns a definite conclusion that the findings
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 11 of 12
recorded by the trial court are perverse and against the weight of the evidence
on record. [Ref: SectionGhurey Lal vs. State of U.P. reported as 2008 (10) SCC
23. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to
the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions afore-cited, we
are of the considered view that there are no substantial and compelling
reasons to differ with the findings arrived at by the learned trial court, based
upon just appreciation of the material evidence available on record in the
case. The learned trial court has taken a holistic view in the matter after
carefully considering and analysing the evidence including the testimony of
victim M on the record.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, we see no ground to interfere with
the impugned judgment. The leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
APRIL 29, 2019
CRL.L.P.589/2018 Page 12 of 12