STATE V. DILIP KUMAR YADAV

 

STATE V. DILIP KUMAR YADAV

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE POCSO, ARARIA, BIHAR

CITATION OF THE CASE	POCSO CASE NO. 31/2021
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	04.10.2021
AGGRIEVED PARTY	AN 8 YEAR OLD GIRL
ACCUSED	DILIP YADAV
BENCH/JUDGE	JUDGE SHASHI KANT RAI
STATUTES INVOLVED	POCSO ACT,2012 CrPC ,1973 IPC,1860
IMPORTANT SECTIONS-	IPC- SECTION 376 AB POCSO ACT- SECTION 4 CrPC -SECTION 313

 

 

ABSTRACT

The case being discussed here is one of its kind as it has been disposed off by the learned judge in just a day’s time. It has set a milestone in the judicial system and is the most required precedent set by this case.

Within one day the judge showed the whole system that heinous crimes can be dealt with such vigil and therefore can save so many lives by delivering the best quality of justice.

 

 

 

 

POCSO ACT,2012 AND ITS RELEVANCE

The act specifically deals with children subjected to crimes like molestation, pornography and so on. The procedures under this are child friendly and are drafted carefully enough to preserve the innocence and diligence of child.

A child is any person who is below the age of eighteen years. It deals more vigilantly with sexual harassment cases wherein the offender had some authority over its victim and provides for maximum punishment as - life imprisonment.

THE EXPEDITIOUS DELIVERY OF JUSTICE

A Special POCSO presiding judicial officer of Bihar , Justice Shashi Kant Rai had given verdict in the case of State v. Dilip Kumar Yadav (2021) within one day implying carrying out all procedural stages, starting from its opening to that of examining all the ten witnesses presented by the prosecution followed by which the judgment was delivered on 4th October 2021.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1.     On the evening of July 22nd, the aggrieved party,  8 year old minor went to wash the pots at a nearby tap. When she returned home after cleaning the pans, the accused, Dilip Yadav, took advantage of her isolation.

2.     He further, snatched the victim’s hand and dragged her inside the nearby house, where she was raped. When the victim’s mother heard shouting, she hurriedtowards the echo.

3.     As her mother entered the premiseshe saw her daughter unconscious on the cot with her clothing drenched in blood. The victim was taken to the local doctor for treatment with the aid of the neighbouring people. The situation of the victim started worsening due to the continuous flow of blood.

4.     The accused, also arrived at the Purnia Hospital, where the victim was being treated. When the victim regained consciousness, the name of Dilip Yadav, who had committed the rape with her, came up. The accused ran away from the hospital after hearing the same.

5.     Furthermore, Dilip Yadav’s family member offered the victim’s mother Rs 150,000 in exchange for the case being closed, which the victim’s father refused. The physicians at the hospital were the ones who had called the nearest police station and told them about the incident.

Issues heard

 

1.    Whether the accused, Dilip Yadav committed rape upon the victim who is almost 8 years of age?

2.    Whether the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim who is below 12 years of age?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PROSECUTION.

1.     It was inferred that the victim was minor after proper medical test therefore the question of her being an adult has been ruled out beyond reasonable doubt.

2.     It was also established by medical examination that the victim was subjected to forceful intercourse.

3.     The testimony of the victim was nowhere found to be ambiguous or hostile and she was able to provide accurate details of the act that had happened with her.

4.     Also, the victim’s parents and her 9 year old brother who being an eye witness of the act, corroborated the victim’s details.

5.     It was also noted that the court in no circumstance had but the victim’s integrity and veracity on stake.

6.     Under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, her evidence was determined to be compatible with her statement. The Court also considered the evidence of the victim’s 9-year-old brother, who stated that he saw the accused Dilip Yadav in the room where the incident occurred. He also testified that the accused smacked him and it is understandable that he fled the scene of the incident out of fear.

 

CONTENTITIONS OF THE ACCUSED

1.     The accused, Dilip Yadav had pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against him includingpunishment for sexual assault under Section 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and punishment for penetrative sexual assault as provided under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. 

 

2.     The case of the defence was the general denial of the whole of the prosecution case and the accused had taken the plea of innocence at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The defence did not produce any evidence as well.

 

 

3.     The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the medical report did not point to recent sexual intercourse or assault and penetration. It was therefore contended that the absence of the same neither can attract Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor the ingredient of Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to put in motion the penal provision of Section 376AB of IPC, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

JUDGEMENT

 

1.     As per section 161 and 164 of the CrPC,1973 it was held that the court has found no ambiguity in the victim’s or either of her parents’ testimony. Both the kids the victim and her brother despite their tender age managed to stay consistent during all the examinations.

2.     The victim’s knowledge at such age about the wrongful act happened to her rules out any kind of doubt upon the truthfulness of the allegations she had put on Mr. Dilip. Therefore, making her testimony an admissible evidence.

3.     The victim also stated that after taking her into the house forcefully, the accused removed her undergarment, inserted and rubbed his penis in her vagina, which points to the essentials of Section 3 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

4.     The victim said unequivocally that the he had put his penis into her vagina in the matter at hand. As a result, the male sex organ is implanted into the female sex organ, which meets the requirements of Sections 375(a), (b), and (c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the victim is under the age of 12, which meets the requirements of Section 376(AB) of the aforementioned Code. That the victim was originally a minor below the age of 12 years, had been shown beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution counsel and therefore clause (m) of Section 5 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the components of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 were met with. Apart from that, the provision of the CrPC specified in Section 221(2) CrPC also allows flexibility to enhance the charge based on facts and evidence. Thus, on the reliance of this provision Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 became relevant and admissible.

PUNISHMENT

Dilip Kumar Yadav was held guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 376(AB) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The Special POCSO Court’s Single Judge bench explained that because the Court was exercising its authority under Section 221 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the accused could be found guilty under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, even if charges were not filed under that provision. 

  In addition to life imprisonment, Special POCSO Court Judge Shashi Kant Rai ordered the accused to pay a fine of Rs 50,000 and compensation of Rs 7 lakh for the survivor’s rehabilitation.

 

CONCLUSION

Crimes against young minds and that too sexual in nature sends chills down the spine of all. This case effortlessly works towards setting priorities that necessitate to work for children and their safety and at the same time it ensures that the trial does not add up to the trauma.

Such judicial officers are the need of the hour. It should be noted that educating and safeguarding the children and quick delivery of justice go hand in hand to protect the childhood of young minds.

The POCSO ACT,2012 is one of the best legislation working for childen’s interest in the country presently.