Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., while dismissing the present appeal upheld the decision of the trial court for offences charged under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Sections 342/363/376 of Penal Code, 1860.

In the present appeal filed by the appellant was convicted by the trial court for the under the above-stated Sections. Appellant contended that the impugned judgment ought to be set aside, since it does not extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant in view of inconsistencies in the testimonies of various witnesses.

Further, he contends that MLC of the victim stated that her hymen was normal and the doctor, who was examined for the prosecution had confirmed that the hymen could be ruptured for other reasons as well. Adding to his contentions, he also states that the victim was actually raped by PW-7 and not by the appellant.

Though, the FSL report supported the case of the prosecution that the victim had suffered sexual assault by the accused.

While recording his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, accused also stated that 3-4 days prior to the incident, a quarrel had broken out between him and the mother of the victim due to which, he had been falsely implicated in the case.

Petitioner’s counsel also submitted that since the physical evidence did not corroborate the charges levelled against the appellant, he ought to be acquitted.

Court’s Decision

High Court stated that no contention was advanced on behalf of the appellant was found to be persuasive. Evidence obtained in this case clearly establishes that the appellant is guilty of the offences for which he was charged.

Court stated that, there is overwhelming evidence to establish that the prosecutrix was recovered from the factory premises of the appellant and the same was closed from outside. Mother of the prosecutrix testified to the aforesaid effect. All the other witnesses in the case corroborated the said fact.

Insofar as the MLC was concerned, Dr Anuradha Tyagi was examined, wherein she stated that it was correct that the hymen of the victim appeared to be normal (externally) and as per P/R examination, no tear or bleeding was found. However, she reiterated that the hymen of the prosecutrix was not found to be intact.

Thus, the Court held that testimonies of witnesses were all consistent and there is little room for entertaining any doubt whether the appellant had committed the offences for which he was charged. Forensic evidence fully establishes the case of the prosecution beyond any pale of doubt.

Hence the present appeal is unmerited and dismissed. [Chhedi Paswan v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 464, decided on 17-02-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. dismissed an appeal filed against the decision of the trial court whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 367, 377 and 506 Penal Code, 1860.

It was alleged against the appellant that he lured the victim, a 13-year-old boy, towards the side of a drain and committed unnatural sex with him; however, the victim shouted and somehow got himself released. The victim narrated the incident to his mother, whereafter, the complaint was made to the police. The victim was taken for the medical examination. Based on the testimony of the victim, the trial court convicted the appellant as mentioned above.

Aditya Wadhwa, Advocate for representing the appellant, contended, inter alia, that the version of the victim was contradicted by a report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). He contended that since no marks of external injury were found on the victim during a medical examination, the allegation that the appellant had started to insert his penis into the victim’s return was not established.

The High Court took note of the trial court’s observation that the victim appeared to be a completely credible witness and had been consistent with his version of the incident starting from the initial complaint to the statement under Section 164 CrPC and his deposition before the court.

Noting that there was no material produced either before the trial court or before the High Court which could shake the testimony of victim or create any doubt on the manner in which the alleged incident had happened, the High Court observed: “Merely because there is no positive FSL report, would not cast any doubt on the testimony of the victim. FSL report is only a corroborative piece of evidence and merely because it does not corroborate the testimony of the victim would not, in any manner, render the testimony of the witness, which is otherwise reliable, as unreliable or liable to be discarded.”

It was further noted that no motive was attributed to the false implication of the accused. The Court was of the opinion that the trial court had rightly held that testimony of the victim was credible and of sterling quality, sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused. In such view of the matter, the instant appeal was dismissed and the impugned order of conviction and sentence was upheld. [Vijay v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10485, decided on 10-10-2019]