The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of an individual for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), observing that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of child victims do not vitiate the core prosecution case. The Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, while confirming the six-year rigorous imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault, modified the sentence for criminal intimidation from three years to one year, taking into account the appellant’s age at the time of the incident.
Case Background
The appeal, Alauddin @ Shakeel v. State, challenged the judgment dated February 5, 2018, passed by the Special Court, Karkardooma, North East District, Delhi. The appellant (A1) was convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 Part II of the IPC. A co-accused (A2) was acquitted by the trial court.
The prosecution’s case was that approximately two months prior to October 17, 2016, the appellant and the co-accused wrongfully confined three minor victims (PW1, PW2, and PW3) in a room in Sonia Vihar, Delhi, subjected them to sexual assault, and threatened them with dire consequences.
The incident came to light when a school teacher (PW9) intercepted notes being exchanged between two of the victims (PW1 and PW2) in class. The notes detailed the abuse by “Chacha Kalia” (the appellant), stating he would give them money and molest them. The teacher informed the Principal, who summoned the parents and subsequently notified the police. An FIR was registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas.
Submissions by the Parties
Counsel for the appellant argued that since the co-accused (A2) was acquitted on the benefit of doubt, the same benefit should be extended to the appellant. The defense highlighted that PW1, one of the victims, had initially admitted in the witness box that no wrongful act was done to her. It was contended that the testimonies of the three victims were “full of inconsistencies, contradictions and improvements.”
Furthermore, the defense pointed out a discrepancy in the investigation: the arrest memo stated the arrest took place in Sonia Vihar, Delhi, whereas the Daily Diary (DD) entry indicated the arrest was effected in Uttar Pradesh.
On behalf of the State, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that while PW1 was initially partially hostile, she later explained her hesitation was due to fear. The prosecutor emphasized that the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 were consistent and corroborated the prosecution’s case.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha examined the evidence, particularly the testimonies of the child victims and the teachers.
1. Reliability of Child Witnesses: The Court acknowledged certain inconsistencies in PW1’s statement but noted her explanation regarding fear. The Court observed:
“It needs to be kept in mind that PW1 was quite a young child at the time of the incident. She was about 11 years when she was examined before the court on 29/04/2017. The abuse took place in the year 2016, when she must have been around 9 to 10 years old. Therefore, there is bound to be some discrepancies and inconsistencies. However, a whole reading of the statements and testimony of the witnesses bring out one consistent case, which is that the accused used to take the victims to his room and touch their private parts.”
2. Documentary Evidence: The Court placed significant reliance on the paper slips recovered by the teacher (PW9). The judgment detailed the contents of the notes (Exts. PW1/B and PW2/B), wherein the victims had written that the accused forced them to remove their clothes, touched their private parts, and threatened to kill them if they disclosed the incident.
3. Defective Investigation: Addressing the discrepancy regarding the place of arrest, the Court held that defective investigation alone cannot be a ground for acquittal if the prosecution case is otherwise established. Citing State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan (2000) and Ganga Singh v. State of M.P. (2013), the Court observed:
“If the prosecution in a given case adduces evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court cannot acquit the accused on the ground that there are some defects in the investigation, but if the defects in the investigation are such as to cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, then of course the accused is entitled to acquittal because of such doubt.”
The Court found that the alleged defect regarding the place of arrest did not affect the core case or cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.
4. Corroboration: The Court noted that the appellant could not show any reason why the victims or the teachers (PW9 and PW10) would depose falsely against him. The discovery of the crime through the teachers’ intervention corroborated the prosecution’s narrative.
Decision and Sentencing
The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 Part II of the IPC.
Regarding the sentence, the Court noted the appellant’s criminal antecedents, observing that he “appears to be a person who does not have any fear or respect of law.” The Court pointed out that the accused had committed the acts on three minor girls and had continued the abuse after returning from jail in another matter.
However, considering the age of the appellant at the time of the crime, the Court modified the sentence for criminal intimidation.
“However, taking into account the fact that the appellant/accused was only 24 years of age at time of the incident, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Part II of Section 506 IPC is reduced to one year.”
Outcome:
- Section 10, POCSO Act: 6 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of ₹30,000 (Confirmed).
- Section 506 Part II, IPC: Reduced from 3 years to 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of ₹5,000.
- The sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Case Details
- Case Title: Alauddin @ Shakeel v. State
- Case Number: CRL.A. 328/2018
- Coram: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
- Counsel for Appellant: Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate (DHCLSC)
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State; Mr. Luv Manan, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
