VEERPAL @ TITU vs STATE
*INTHE HIGH COURT OFDELHIAT NEW DELHI
Judgmentdeliveredon:15thApril, 2024
+ CRL.A.223/2023VEERPAL @ TITU….. Appellant
Through:Mr. Nagendra Kasana, Mr. Aditya
Sharma, Ms. PalakandMr. RajeshR.
Rathod, Advs.
versusSTATE….. Respondent
Through:Ms. MeenakshiDahiya, APP for State
with SI Satyapreet, PS Jaitpur.
Mr. BirSinghandMr. RaviNirvan,
Advs. for victim.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTAJ U D G M E N TANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA, J.
1.Anappealhasbeenpreferredbythe appellant/convictunder Section374(2) of Code of CriminalProcedure,1973(Cr.P.C.) challengingthe
judgmentandorder onsentence dated09.01.2023and16.01.2023respectivelypassedbylearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge, SpecialCourtPOCSO, SaketCourt, NewDelhiinSessionCase No.2781/2016, FIRNo.529/2016underSection376/354/506/509IPC andSection8/10ofPOCSOAct, PS: Jaitpur, Delhi.
The appellanthasbeentherebysentencedfor offence punishableunderSection10of POCSOAct, 2012toRIfor five yearsandfine of Rs.2,000/-
(indefaultof paymentof fine, toundergoSI for 15days);for offencepunishableunder Section506IPCtoRIfor five yearsandfine of Rs.2000/-
(indefaultof paymentof fine, toundergoSI for 15days), withbenefitof
CRL.A.223/2023Page1of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
Section428Cr.P.C.Appellanthasalsobeendirectedtopaycompensationof Rs.20,000/-tothe victim
2.Inbrief, asper the case of the prosecution,a writtencomplaintwasgivenbythe victim/prosecutrixR(name withheld) agedabout12yearson
16.09.2016allegingthatshe islivingwithher grandmother, uncle andaunty
{i.e.chacha(O)andchachi(M) (i.e.sisterof appellant)}since her father hadexpired. AppellantVeerpal@ Tituwhoisbrother of herchachi(M), usedtovisittheir house andteachher wrongthings. On10.09.2016, whentheappellantcame totheir house,she wenttomeethiminthe roomof herchachi(M). Aftersome time, whenher chachi(M)wenttobathroom,theappellantstartedkissingher andpressedher chest. She somehowreleasedherself fromhisclutchesandranaway. Inthe eveningatthe time of goingtohishouse, appellantthreatenedtokillherincase she made anycomplaintagainsthim. She remainedupsetfor manydaysanddisclosedthe incidentonaskingbyher grandmotheron16.09.2016. FIR wasaccordinglyregisteredunder Section354/509/506 IPC and Section8/10 of POCSO Act.
3.Charge-sheetwaspresentedafter completionofinvestigationandcharge wasframedagainstthe appellantfor offencespunishableunderSection506IPC andSection6/10POCSOAct, 2012. Appellantpleadednotguiltyto the same and claimed trial.
4.Insupportofitscase, prosecutionexamined11witnesses, namely,
PW1Ms.V(victim), PW2Ms.SK,PrimaryTeacher (name withheld), Delhiwhoprovedthe dateof birthof the victimi.e.10.11.2004;PW3Mrs.SD(grandmother of the victim), PW4Rajbir Singh, MRTAIIMS Hospitalwhoprovedthe MLC Ex.PW4/B;PW5Ct. Kuldeep;PW6Harbir SinghYadav,
Principal(name withheld),Aligarh, U.P.whoprovedthe date of birthof the
CRL.A.223/2023Page2of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
appellantVeerpal@Titu;PW7Const. Sarita;PW8Const. Hanuman;PW9HC BheemSingh;PW10SI RajivKumarandPW11SIPraveshKumardeposed on various aspects of investigation.
5.Inthe statementrecordedunder Section313Cr.P.C.,appellantdeniedthe prosecutionversionandclaimedthathe hadbeenfalselyimplicated.
Also, DW1ShriOmDuttandDW2Sukhbeer wereexaminedindefence,
whohadaccompaniedthe appellantonthe allegeddate ofincidenti.e.
10.09.2016inordertoresolvethematrimonialdifferencesbetweenM
(chachiof victim/sister of appellant) andher husbandO(chachaof victim).
Theyalsodeposedwithreference toquarrelwhichhadtakenplace atthe
premisesof victimon10.09.2016andfurther statedthatMalongwithher
child hadproceeded to her parental home with them.
6.Learnedcounselforthe appellantsubmitsthatappellanthasbeenfalselyimplicatedbyusingthechildvictimonaccountof animositybetweenthefamilyof victimandthe appellantonaccountof matrimonialdifferencesbetweenhissister Mandher husbandO.Itispointedoutthatsince
father of the victimhadalreadyexpiredandher motherhadleft,she was
stayingwithher uncle/chachaOandaunt/chachiM(sister of appellant).
Itisurgedthatonthe allegeddate of the incidenti.e. 10.09.2016, appellanthadvisitedalongwithhisfather andotherpersonsfor purpose of resolutionofmatrimonialdisputesbetweenhissisterMandher husbandO. Sincethe matter tookan uglyturn, the police reachedthe spotatabout4:45PM forresolvingthe quarrelbetweentheparties.However, nosuchsexualassaultwasreportedbythevictimattheaforesaidtime andthereafter differentnarrationsof the incidenthave beengivenbythe victimsince 16.09.2016.
The discrepanciesinthe initialcomplaint, statementunderSection164
CRL.A.223/2023Page3of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
Cr.P.C.,supplementarystatementunder Section161Cr.P.C. dated22.09.2016anddepositionmade before the Courthave beenpointedout. Itisalsocontendedthatthe factumof visitofappellantalongwithotherfamilymembersalsostandscorroboratedbythe statementof defencewitnessesaswellaspolice officialswhohadreachedthe spotandinquiredintothe
incidenton10.09.2016,after acallregardingquarrelwasmade toPCR. Itisvehementlypointedoutthatthere hasbeendelayof five daysinlodgingtheFIRandthewordbadtamiziusedbythe prosecutrixhasbeengivendifferentconnotationSfrom time to time.
7.Ontheotherhand, the impugnedjudgmentpassedbythelearnedTrialCourtissupportedbylearnedAPP for the State aswellaslearnedcounselfor the victim. Itissubmitted thattestimonyof the victimis trustworthyand,
assuch,there isnobar inlawtobase convictiononthe testimonyof solitarywitness.Itisalsosubmittedthatthe victimfeltsuffocatedandnervousand,
assuch, didnotinformthe incidentforfive daysafter 10.09.2016. The
contradictionspointedoutonbehalfofthe appellantarestatedtobe
immaterial to discreditthe testimony of witnesses.
8.Perusalof impugned judgmentreflectsthatthere is no dispute astotheage of the victimwhichhasbeendulyprovedonrecordand,assuch,thefindingsof thelearnedTrial Courtthat victimR wasagedabout 11 yearsand10 months on the basisof school records, requiresnointerference.
9.The principle iswellsettledthatthe Courtcanbase convictiononthe
testimonyof a childvictim,if the same is credibleandtruthful.
Corroborationisnota mustonrecordbutisa rule of prudence.Theprecautionwhichthe Courtshouldbearinmindwhile relyinguponthetestimony of a child victimis thatthe witness must be reliable, consistent and
CRL.A.223/2023Page4of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
there isno likelihood of beingtutoredor underaninfluence.The versionputforthhastobe unassailable, trustworthyandof sterlingquality,capable of
holdingappellantguilty on the basis of solitary evidence.
10.Itispertinenttonotice thatthe genesisof incidenton10.09.2016reflectsmatrimonialissuesbetweenOandMandnocomplaintof sexualassaultwasmade bythe victimdespite visitof police tothe spot. The initialDDNo.43Arecordedat04:45PM on10.09.2016atthe instanceof the
victimistothe extentthatthree-four goonshave enteredintothe house of alady. Onthesame day, DDNo.53Awasagainrecordedat 19:41 hrs. that thepolice officialshadnottakenanyactionwithregardtoearlier DD. Theresultof inquirypursuanttothe aforesaidDDNo.43Aasrecordedvide DDNo.62B byPW11iscrucialandreportof SIconcernedinthisregardis
categoricalthatMwife of Ohadcalledher father Randbrother toher
matrimonialhome beingaggrievedof habitof O of consumingliquor. Due
toargumentsatthe spot, the victimcalledonNumber 100aboutentryof
goons. Further, Rtookhisdaughter M (chachiof victim) alongwithher
childtohisvillageDankaurbutdidnotmake anypolicecomplaintin
writing. The same alsoreflectsthatmother of Ostatedthatthere isno
place for her daughter-in-law (M) in the house.
11.Itmaynextbe noticedthat victiminher writtencomplaint givento thepolice on16.09.2016after delayof five days, allegedthat on 10.09.2016,shehadgone tomeetappellantVeerpal@ Titu, whoisbrother of her chachi, inthe roomof her chachiM. Her chachiwasalsopresentinthe roomandwhenshe proceededtobathroom, appellanthadkissedher andpressedherchest. However, she managedtoleave andinthe eveningwhile leaving,
appellanthadthreatenedher tokill. Further, since she feltsuffocated, she
CRL.A.223/2023Page5of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
disclosedthe incidenttoher grandmother (dadi) on16.09.2016and,
thereafter, written complaint was filed by her.
Apparently, the deliberationsbefore lodgingthe complaintcannotberuledoutinviewofcontradictionsdealtwithhereinafter, withoutwhisperinga wordregardingquarrel andvisitof police on10.09.2016.
12.Thereafter, inher statementunder Section164Cr.P.C. recordedon22.09.2016, victimimprovedthe versionandstatedthatappellanthadmade
her sitonhislapandhadkissedheronthe cheek. Further,she allegedthatappellantkepthishandonher chestand, thereafter, onhervagina. Shefurther statedthatwhenhe starteddoingbadtamizi,she informedthesame toher grandmother(dadi).Further, whenher grandmother(dadi)confrontedappellantVeerpal, theyassaultedher grandmother (dadi) andchacha andalsothreatenedthem.Further, the incidentoccurredatabout04:35PM andshe called the police.
Thus, onthefaceofrecord, inthe secondversion, victimstatedthatincident wasdisclosed to her grandmother (dadi) and chacha onthe same daythoughinthecomplaintlodgedon16.09.2016, acontraryversionwasgivenof havinginformedher grandmother(dadi)of the incidenton16.09.2016which occurredon 10.09.2016.
13.Another supplementarystatementof thevictimunder Section161Cr.P.C.wasthereafter recordedon22.09.2016, whereinshestatedthatappellanthadbeenaccompaniedbythree other persons. Further, her chachi
M andchacha Owere residinginthe roomonthe roof while she was
residingwithher grandmother (dadi) onthe groundfloor. She furtherallegedthatapartfromkeepingthe handonher vagina, appellanthadalso
CRL.A.223/2023Page6of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
insertedthe finger. Further, she clarifiedthatshe hadtoldhergrandmother(dadi) on 16.09.2016itself aboutthe entire incident.
Therefore, inthe thirdversion, victimagainchangedher versionofhavinginformedher grandmother (dadi) on16.09.2016andalsoaddedthe
allegations of fingeringby the appellant.
14.Itmaybe further noticedthatinher depositionbefore theCourt,
victimstatedthatappellanthadputhishandonher private partandoncross-
examinationbylearnedAPP for the State,shedeniedthatappellantinsertedhisfingerinher vagina. She further statedthatshe haddisclosedthe
incidenttoher grandmother (dadi) onthe nextdayitself butreportwasmade
16.09.2016.Itispertinenttonote thatduringcross-examination,victimstatedthaton10.09.2016, police officialshadvisitedtheir housesince shemade a calltothe police asthe appellantandother personswere beatingherfather (possiblythevictimwantedtorefer toher chacha O). Shealsoadmittedthather chachialongwithher sonhadleftwithherbrother(appellantVeerpal) andhadnotreturnedhome after the incident. Further,
shereiteratedthatshe hadtoldthe incidenttohergrandmother (dadi) onthe
nextdayinthe noontime. She alsostatedthatappellantwithaccompaniedpersonshadcome atabout3:00-3:30PM andstayedtill5:30PM andfromthere they hadgone to the Police Station.
Thus, inher depositionbefore the Court,victimagainchangedherstatementand statedthat incidentwasdisclosedto her grandmother (dadi) on
thenextdaycontrarytothe complaintlodgedbyher wherebyincidentwasstatedtohave beenreportedon16.09.2016. Further, the same isalsocontrarytothestatementunder Section164Cr.P.C. whereinincidentwas
CRL.A.223/2023Page7of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
statedtohave beenconveyedtoher dadion10.09.2016itself onwhichthere
wasaquarrelandherchacha and dadiwere assaulted. She further deniedthe
incidentof fingeringbythe appellant. The chainof eventsreflectsthattestimonyof the witness/victimisunreliableasshe hasbeenchangingthestands,possiblyduetotutoringor influence andthrowingdoubtif theincidenthadhappened, asalleged. If anysuchincidenthadoccurredon10.09.2016onwhichquarreltookplaceasallegedbythe victiminher
statementunder Section164Cr.P.C.,thereisnoreasonthatthesame wouldnothave beenconveyedtopolice onvisittothe premiseson10.09.2016.
The edifice of prosecutionversion, as such,is weak and full of gaps.
15.S(grandmother ofvictim) inher statementunderSection161Cr.P.C.on17.09.2016statedthatshe hadbeeninformedof the badtamizibytheappellantwiththevictimon16.09.2016andinher supplementarystatementunder Section161Cr.P.C. recordedon22.09.2016, sheclarifiedthatinsertionof finger wasdisclosedbythevictimtoher on22.09.2016.
She further statedthaton10.09.2016appellantwascalledbyM(chachiofvictim) since there usedtobe fightsbetweenMandher sonOandon10.09.2016, police hadvisitedthe premisesandhadleftafter counsellingher
son O and M.
16.However, itmaybe noticedatthisstage itself thatinher depositionrecordedbefore the CourtPW3-SD(grandmother of victim)statedthatitwasdisclosedbyher grand-daughter thatappellanthadkissedher andtouchedher chestandthighsbutoncross-examinationbylearnedAPP forthe State, PW3statedthather grand-daughter hadtoldher thatappellanthadinsertedhisfingerinthevagina.PW3apparentlydidnotdepose if appellant
CRL.A.223/2023Page8of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
hadearlier misbehavedwiththe victimasallegedbyher thatappellantusedtoteach the victim wrong things.
Duringcross-examinationonbehalf of the appellant, PW3admittedthatonthe date of incident, the police officialshadvisitedthepremisesoncallof quarrel. She admittedthatthere were five personsfromthe in-lawshouse of hersonOonthedateof incidentwhich includedfather-in-lawandbrother-in-law(appellant) of her sonO. She alsoadmittedthatpoliceofficialsonthe aforesaiddate hadaskedMwife of Otofile a case atCAWCell. However, she deniedthe suggestionthatthe presentcase hadbeenfalselyregisteredinorder tosave the proceedingsbefore the CAWCell.
17.Inthe aforesaidbackground, itisdiscernedthatthere wasa
matrimonialdispute betweenM(chachiof victim) andO(chacha ofvictim), due towhichappellant(whoisbrother of M) alongwithhisfatherandother personshadvisitedthe house of hissister for resolutionofmatrimonialdisputeson10.09.2016. Acallwasmade tothe police after the
quarrel. After the visitof police, Malongwithher child, appellantand
other personsproceededtoher parentalhome. The factthatpolice hadvisited the site due to quarrel on a callmade bythe victimisnot disputedandthe matter hadbeendulyinquiredintobythe police. Keepinginperspectivetheaforesaidfactualposition, thedelayinlodgingtheFIRalongwithvariationsandcontradictionsinthestatementofthevictimRassumessignificance. The victiminthe presentcase, whowasagedabout12yearsanda studentof 7thclass, inviewof writtencomplaintsubmittedbyher on16.09.2016andcallsmade after theincidenton10.09.2016appearstobe
CRL.A.223/2023Page9of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
fullycapable ofunderstandingthefactsandconsequencesof the incident.Itiscrucialthatthoughthe policeofficialsreachedthespotbutfor the reasonsbestknownthe incidentwasnever revealedtothepolice for a periodof fivedays. The reasonsextendedbythe victimfor delayinlodgingthe complaintalsodonotmatchwiththe contradictionsbroughtoutinthetestimonyof thevictimandPW3onrecord.Inherstatementunder Section164Cr.P.C.
recordedon22.09.2016, victimcategoricallystatedthatappellanthadalsokepthishandonhervagina andshe disclosedthesame tohergrandmother(dadi) onwhichappellanthadbeatenher grandmother andChacha O.Incase anysuchincidenthadhappenedasallegedbythe victimandprosecution, there isnoreasonthatPW3(grandmother of victim) or her
chachaOwouldnothavedisclosedthesame tothe policeofficialswho hadvisitedthe premisesaroundthesame time ona callof quarrelon10.09.2016.
Acomplete stoic silence onthe incidentfor a periodof five dayscreatesa
deepshadowof doubtonthe prosecutioncase. Itmayalsobe noticedthatvictimhasbeenchangingherversionregardingthe actscommittedbytheappellantather discretion.
18.Itcannotbeignoredthatentire incidentisallegedtohave happenedonlywithina shortperiodof time while M(chachiof victim) hadgone tobathroomandisfollowedbyanaltercationdue tomatrimonialdisputesonwhichthe police wascalledbutthe incidentwasnotrevealed. Inthe lightof
contradictionsbroughtonrecord,the testimonyof the victimaswellashergrandmother (PW3) doesnotinspire confidence anditcannotbe ruledoutthatcase isbasedupontutoringor fabricationdue toanimosityandmatrimonialdisputes.Itmayalsobe noticedthatthe victimalsorefusedforinternalmedical examinationfornoplausible reasons.
CRL.A.223/2023Page10of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
19.The learnedTrialCourtcompletelymissedtoappreciate thecontradictionswhichhave beenbroughtuponrecordandgotothe rootofthe prosecutionversion. The defence of the appellantisalsodulysupportedbypoliceentriesasdiscussedabove aswellasdepositionof DW1andDW2,
whose presence alongwiththe appellantandotherfamilymembersfor
resolvingthe matrimonialdisputesbetweenM(chachiof victim) andO
(chachaof victim)istrustworthy. Incase, victimwastoldanydirtythingsbythe appellant, inthateventuality, victimwouldnothave gone tomeettheappellantonher ownon10.09.2016.The factthatM(chachiof victim)
wasnotexaminedbythe InvestigatingAgencytoevenconfirmif anysuch
incidenthadhappenedduringher allegedproceedingtobathroomattherelevanttime, reflectsthatallegationshave beenacceptedatface value.
Despite strongrebuttalevidence of implicationdue toanimositygeneratedbecause of matrimonialdifferences, the appellantstandsconvictedbythelearnedTrialCourt.The quarrelatthetime of incidentandmatrimonialdifferencesprovide a strongmotiveforfalselyimplicatingtheappellantsubsequently.
20.Section29of POCSOActprovidesthatCourtshallpresume thattheaccusedhascommittedthe offence for whichhe ischargedwith, untilcontraryisproved. However, the presumptionwouldoperate onlywhenthe
prosecutionprovesthe foundationalfactsinthe contextof allegationagainsttheaccusedbeyondreasonable doubt.After the prosecutionestablishesthe
foundationalfacts, the presumptionraisedagainstthe accusedcanberebuttedbydiscreditingthe prosecutionwitnessesthroughcross-examinationanddemonstratingthe gapsinprosecutionversionor improbabilityof the
CRL.A.223/2023Page11of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
incidentor leaddefence evidence inorder torebutthe presumptionbywayof preponderance of probability.
Keepingthe same inperspective, the prosecutioninthe firstinstanceisrequiredtoestablishthe foundationalfactthatthe incident, asalleged, wasconveyedbythe victimtoher dadi(grandmother) on16.09.2016(i.e.the dayof lodgingof FIR). However, the evidence andstatementsduringinvestigation, asdiscussedabove, reflectdifferentdatesof allegedcommunicationof the incident, whichthrowsa doubtontheprosecutionversion. Inviewof above, inabsence offoundationalfactnotbeingprovedbeyondreasonable doubt, the relianceplaceduponpresumptionunderSection29& 30of POCSOActbylearnedTrialCourttobase conviction,
appearstobe misplaced. Takinginthe alternative, evenif thefoundationalfactsareconsideredtobe proved, tomakethe presumptionunder Section29of POCSOAct, the same standsdiscreditedbywayof discrepanciesbroughtin cross-examinationof the victim, PW3 and witnesses examined in defence.
The presumptionof guiltunder Section29& 30of POCSOActtakenbythe learnedTrialCourtcouldnotbe anedifice toconvictthe appellantsince testimonyof victimisunreliable andthere are seriousflawsandgapsinthe prosecutioncase. Asa wrongfulacquittalshakesthe confidence of
people, a wrongfulconvictionisfar worse. Achildabuser inthe eventualityof false implicationevencontinuestosuffer ablotofsocialstigma whichismuchmore painfulthanthe rigoursofa trialandimprisonment.Prosecutioncase ismarredbyinadequaciesandcontradictionswhichstrike tothe rootofprosecutioncase and, assuch, prosecutionhasfailedtobringhome thecharge againstthe accusedbeyond reasonable doubt.
CRL.A.223/2023Page12of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA
For the foregoingreasons, appealisallowedandthe judgmentandorder onsentence passedbythe learnedTrialCourtissetaside. Appellantisacquitted andbe released forthwith, if not requiredin any other case.
Pending applications, if any, also standdisposed of.
Acopyof thisjudgmentbe forwardedtothe JailSuperintendentandthelearnedTrialCourtfor informationandcompliance.Acopybealsoprovidedtothe appellant, free of cost.
(ANOOP KUMARMENDIRATTA)
JUDGEAPRIL15, 2024/sd
CRL.A.223/2023Page13of13
(Certifier’s identity unknown) Signed by DINESH CHANDRA