No registred sex cam
But, the order on sentence was pronounced by her successor who, for unexplained reasons, chose to mete out punishment to the appellant for the graver offence (Section 6 of POCSO Act) for which there was neither a charge laid nor conviction recorded. The order on sentence reveals gross confusion prevailing in the mind of the trial judge with regard to the inter-play of various provisions dealing with the issue of compensation in such cases as at hand. The substantial part of the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial in support of its case against the appellant was admitted by him in the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr. C., which evidence, even otherwise being wholly reliable, deserves to be accepted and set out at the outset as territory which is beyond dispute. The victim (who we may also be referring to as "the prosecutrix") was born on to PW-3 (mother of the prosecutrix) out of her first marriage that took place about 20 years prior to the incidents which are subject matter of the case. The impugned judgment was passed by another presiding officer holding the appellant guilty as charged.PW-2/A) being lodged by the prosecutrix which was registered as FIR (Ex. After the registration of the FIR, the prosecutrix was sent for her medical examination to Safdarjung Hospital on .
It further needs to be mentioned here itself that the prosecutrix gave birth to a male child on 10.2.2014 in Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi.In order to arrange proper counseling, PW-4 contacted Ms.Ravinder Kaur (PW-16), Head of Resilience Centre and Coordinator, „Child Line Butterflies‟, a non-governmental organization (NGO) on .This part of the testimony of PW-4 must be accepted in view of the age of the foetus at the time of discovery of facts. Coming back to the narrative, after the ultra-sound examination conducted on 8.10.2013 in the clinic of PW-8 had revealed that the prosecutrix was carrying a foetus, PW-4 statedly questioned her in the course of which the prosecutrix informed her that her step father (the appellant) was responsible for the pregnancy.
She narrated events going back to the time when the prosecutrix had just turned 11. On the conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment dated 15 th October, 2015 was passed holding the appellant guilty, as charged, for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 IPC besides under Section 4 of POCSO Act read with Section 376 IPC. On the material placed before us it is beyond the pale of any doubt or controversy that the victim of the offences statedly committed by the appellant was a ‗child' within the meaning of the expression defined in Section 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act, she being below the age of 18 years at the relevant point of time.