State ( NCT of Delhi) v. Ranjeet @ Ganja @ Sombar Roy

SEHGAL, J r> I,.' • , A,: .A -7-

¶777:f- '■7/; ■7 .'di ■! I "■ !■ v./ C"' V,C Page II of II

$-11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 443/2019 STATE (NOT OF DELHI) Petitioner Through . Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State. versus RANJEET @ GANJA @ SOMBARROY Respondent Through Mr.Amit Kumar with Ms.Meenakshi Dutta and Mr.Pranav. Buwaniwala, Advocates. ^0 Date of Decision: 10^"^ October, 2019 CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANM^HAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL /• h;i .V ; f ' ' rt". ' V.V J-frl>6:M"ENT-. MANMOHAN. J (Orall; ' t0 T. Present criminal leave petition has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the judgment and OTder pf acquittal dated 09'^ May, 2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Nbrth-West J Special Court (POCSO), Rohini District Courts, Delhi in FIR No.552/2014 registered with Police Station South Rohini. 2. The Trial Court in the impugned judgment while acquitting the respondent-accused under Sections 366/506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act has held as under:- Page I of II Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. "7. As far as date of birth of victim is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the ase of victim. The documents obtained by the lO from the school were only exhibited by the lO PW-13 but were not proved by summoning the orisinal record or by examinim any witness from the concerned school Further, a perusal of these documents shows that no proof of the date of birth of yictim was filed by the parents of yictim at the time of admission. There is no MCD birth certificate nor any affidavit of the parents in suvvort of date of birth of the yictim. The prosecution could not prove that victim was minor at the time of the allesed incident. 8. Coming to the main incident, victim admittedly did not raise any alarm at any stase since she left Delhi and till she came back to Delhi. Victim specidcdlly stated in her cross examination "Ranjeet battery riksha chala rdha tha aur mein free hokar peechhey bethi thi. " ThiS-^re^ec^imMyic^ voluntarily left with the accused of her own. Wictim did not raise any alarm even at the house of PW-7 who was: the fri'end of the accused. PW-7 no where stated that victim ever stated to him at any stase that she has been forcibly broushtdopMnmU Eurther Punjab victim went to West Bensal mh'din dhd^^i^efjidt W she did not raise any alarm. The not show any sisn of injury. It is claimed thiat'yKdmtim 15 years of ase and accused was about 23 years old. It is claimed by the victim that she was raped on 17.07.2014 and then on 20.07.2014 but the medical examination does not corroborate;her statement. Further the FSL result does not Corroborate the prosecution story as semen was not detected on any sample of the victim. The victim even did not report about any sexual assault at the time of her recovery to the police at West Bengal. She explained that her mausi at West Bengal who called the police asked her not to tell any thins to the Bensal Police. The explanation given by the yictim in this regard is not plausible. Further, the mother of the yictim in her cross examination stated that she had no knowledse about the victim and the accused prior to police informing her that yictim had sone with the accused. The FIR however is Page 2 of I / against her claim as the name of the accused is svecificallv recorded in the FIR as the verson who had kidnapped the victim. The prosecution could not prove the victim was minor at the time of her allessd kidnapyins and her conduct shows that she voluntarily left with the accused. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 10. The facts as evident from the testimony of the victim leads to the inevitable conclusion that it is case of consent and victim voluntarily accompanied the accused. There is no material on record to point out towards kidnappin2. Victim is unreliable and inconsistent and conviction cannot he based on her sole testimony ^hich is not corroborated bv anv material on record. Prosecution has failed to prove any of the o