State preferred a leave petition against the acquittal in a POCSO case. The bench dismissed the petition finding no merit, noting trial court correctly applied POCSO provisions regarding compromise and findings of contradictions in complainant statements.
Leave petition dismissed; acquittal of respondent stands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~18.
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP along with SI Devi Lal, PS - Maurya Enclave, for the State.
versus
NANDAN PASWAN ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
O R D E R
%
06.04.2018
Crl. M.A. No. 6059/2018
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 205/2018
The State has preferred the present leave petition to seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15.01.2018 passed by the learned ASJ (North-West) – 01, Special Court, POCSO, Rohini District Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.125/2014 titled State Vs. Nandan Paswan arising out of FIR No.343/2014 under Sections 376/ 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act registered at Police Station – Maurya Enclave. The Trial Court has acquitted the respondent accused.
As per the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix – 10 years old, was teased on 06.05.2014. The PCR call was responded to. However, neither the prosecutrix, nor her mother gave any statement to the IO alleging teasing. Subsequently, the mother of the prosecutrix again lodged a complaint claiming that on the date of the incident, i.e. 06.05.2014, the IO was apprised of the sexual assault on the prosecutrix. However, the same was amicably resolved.
The Trial Court has held that the offence alleged against the respondent could not have been compromised since Section 19 of the POCSO Act casts an obligation on every person, including police officials to proceed with the case failing which an offence under Section 21 of the Act is attracted.
The Trial Court also found contradictions in the statement of the mother. In her complaint, she stated that on 06.05.2014, when she came back from work, she found her daughter scared and alone in the jhuggi and the victim narrated the entire incident to her. Whereas in the statement recorded in the Court, PW-10 stated that on the date of the incident, the daughter came to her workplace at about 4 p.m. but did not disclose anything to her but when they returned to their jhuggi at 5 p.m., the daughter narrated the incident to her.
Pertinently, it was the case of the prosecutrix that she had narrated the incident to her daadi and chaachi . The daadi of the prosecutrix was produced as a defence witness, i.e. DW-1 and she did not stand by the statement of the prosecutrix. The Trial Court observed that the daadi of the prosecutrix/ DW-1 had been continuously living with the prosecutrix and looking after her since her mother was a working woman and was out to
work between 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Thus, there was no reason for DW-1 to depose against the case of the prosecution.
The Trial Court also noticed contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and before the Court with regard to the incident that allegedly took place on 06.05.2014.
In our view, we find no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
P.S.TEJI, J
APRIL 06, 2018 B.S. Rohella
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present leave petition appealing against the acquittal of the respondent in a POCSO case has any merit.
Whether the trial court correctly held that the offence under Section 19 of the POCSO Act could not have been compromised.
STATE (GNCTD)
NANDAN PASWAN
VIPIN SANGHI
P.S. TEJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
