State vs Mohd Afzal

1.By this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22nd April, 2017 acquitting respondent for offences punishable under

Sections 354/354B/341/506 IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act registered at PS Nabi Karim, Delhi.

2.The allegations of the complainant in the FIR were that the petitioner who was residing in the vicinity used to stalk her and on 17th May, 2014 at

about 7.00 PM when she was coming back after taking tuition she was accosted by the respondent who was standing near kuda khatta, Prem Nagar

with a bottle of Limca and when she asked him about his following her, the respondent affirmed the fact and stated that he had been doing it for the

last four months. When the victim reached the gali, appellant surfaced again, stopped her and poured limca on her face. The victim informed her

mother who in turn informed the police. Information of this alleged incident of 17th May, 2014 at about 7.00 PM was given by the complainant’s

mother on 31st May, 2014 and recorded as DD No. 33A exhibited vide Ex.PW-4/D on the basis of which FIR was registered.

However, before the complaint was given by the mother of the victim on 31st May, 2014 the respondent had lodged a complaint on 20th May, 2014

at PS Nabi Karim but with regard to incident of 19th May, 2014 which was entered vide DD No. 37B dated 20th May, 2014 and exhibited as Ex.DW-

1/A. In the said complaint the respondent clearly stated that he had been extended threats by the complainant and her family members to involve him

in FIR of “chhed chhadâ€​.

4.In view of this earlier complaint of respondent the learned Trial Court noted that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The learned Trial

Court also noted that 7.00 PM in the month of May is a time when there is light and where people were in high attendance as the incident took place

in gali however, no independent person witnessed the incident. Hence the learned trial Court granted the benefit of doubt to respondent and acquitted

him.

5.For the facts noted above and that even before belated FIR was lodged the respondent expressed his apprehension of his being involved in false

case relating to “chhed chhad†and that no independent witness came forward to support the case of the victim despite there being shops and lot

of people around, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court committed no error as the view expressed by the learned Trial Court is one of the

plausible views on the evidence of the prosecution and defence before it.

6.Leave to appeal petition is declined. Petition is dismissed.