Dismissed

State of NCT of Delhi v. Satya Prakash Verma

Delhi HC9 Jul 2018CRL.L.P./426/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six Judges in the High Court of Delhi disposed of a Leave Petition by the State seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under the POCSO Act. The Hon'ble Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the trial court's judgment due to inconsistencies in testimony and lack of medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

The leave petition was dismissed; the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent was allowed to stand.

State of NCT of Delhi Vs Satya Prakash Verma — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~15

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.L.P. 426/2018

¶4

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for State with W/SI Maya Devi, PS Nihal Vihar

¶5

versus SATYA PRAKASH VERMA ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA O R D E R % 09.07.2018 CRL.M.A.12211/2018

¶6

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

¶7

CRL.L.P. 426/2018

¶8

The present is a leave petition preferred by the State to seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13.04.2018 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01,West, Special Court under the POCSO Act, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in new Sessions Case No.57427/2016, titled State Vs. Satya Prakash Verma . The trial Court has acquitted the respondent No.2, since the testimonies of the prosecutrix was found to be inconsistent apart from the fact that there was no medical evidence to support the charge. The charge against the respondent/accused was that he had inserted his finger in the vagina of the prosecutrix, which allegedly been witnessed by the mother PW-2 of the prosecutrix PW-1.

¶9

We have heard Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP. According to the

¶10

prosecutrix, the accused had similarly assaulted her on about 10 occasions earlier before the same was allegedly discovered by the mother PW-2. The medical examination of the prosecutrix did not show any injury on the prosecutrix. The trial Court has discussed the evidence in depth. The relevant discussion on the said aspect is as follows:-

¶11

“26. In her complaint (Ex.PW1/A), Ms.X (PW1) the prosecutrix has stated that the accused had put his hand inside her salwar and put his finger in her urinating part while in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (ExPW1/B), she has stated that the accused put his hand inside her pajama with elastic and touched her private part. She has given a third version in her evidence before the Court by deposing that the accused many times used to tie her hands with gate and used to touch his mouth on her vagina. Accused also used to touch his finger in her vagina. He did not insert his finger in her vagina. Accused has put his hand on her TOILET WALI JAGAH.”

¶12

xxxxx

¶13

“36. It is also pertinent to mention that as per the complaint (Ex.PW1/A), Ms. X (PW1) was wearing a “salwar”, as per the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the prosecurtix (Ex.PW1/B), she was wearing “elastic was pajama” and as per her evidence as PW1, she was wearing a “pajami”. No explaination has come forth from the prosecution regarding this contradiction.

¶14

37. It is very important to mention that as per the complaint (Ex.PW1/A), the accused had put his hand inside her salwar and put his finger in her urinating part. However, in the MLC of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW3/B), in the history, the doctor has been told that the accused who is the grandfather of the prosecurtix had been repeatedly raping her for about two months about 10 times. She was raped the last time on 23.11.2015. However no such deposition was made by Ms.Y (PW2), her mother. Ms. X (PW1), The prosecutrix has also not deposed the same in her

¶15

examination in chief although there is a mention in her cross examination on a different line which also remains unexplained by the prosecution as to why it was not disclosed in the complaint, statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. or evidence and why it was not reported to the police. The complaint (Ex.PW1/A), FIR (Ex.PW3/E), MLC of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW3/B) are dated 01.12.2015. The statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/B) was recorded on 02.12.2015 and the allegations made in the history of the patient mentioned in her MLC are not part of the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the allegations of repeated rape for about two by the accused of the prosecutrix appear to be an after thought and strike at the very root of the prosecution story.

¶16

38. It can be seen that there are numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the different statements of the prosecutrix especially regarding the manner in which the alleged offence was committed. It also cannot be ignored that the prosecutions (PW1) as well as her mother (PW2) have admitted in their cross examination that there was a dispute between the accused and the parent of the prosecutrix over the property which indicates the possibility of false implication of the accused.”

¶17

In these circumstances we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.

Dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

I.S.MEHTA, J

JULY 09, 2018 nd

State of NCT of Delhi v. Satya Prakash Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of NCT of Delhi v. Satya Prakash Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh B N @ Dinesh Gowda Vs Union of India

Krisna Naik Vs Union of India

Phulmuni Vs Goverment of NCT of Delhi

Haneef Khan Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Aasha Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Raj Kumar Prasad Vs Clouds M Pharmaz Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.