Delhi District Court
St. vs . Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad Etc. on 23 March, 2007
-:1:-
S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J.
TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI
S.C. NO. 42/06
FIR/C.R. NO. 27/94
P.S. Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh (Maharashtra)
U/Sec. 376/323/324/34 IPC
State vs. 1. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad,
S/O B.M. Prasad,
R/O C - 98, I.P.C.L. Colony,
Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh,
Maharashtra.
2. Krishna Lata Prasad,
W/O Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad,
R/O C - 98, I.P.C.L. Colony,
Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh,
Maharashtra.
J U D G M E N T :-
Two accused persons, namely, Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad and Krishna Lata Prasad, who are related to each other as husband and wife, respectively, have been chargesheeted in -:2:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. a case bearing FIR/C.R. NO. 27/94, P.S. Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh (Maharashtra) for offence punishable U/S 376/323/324/34 IPC.
2. The precise case of the prosecution as found reflected from the case record is that on 07.11.93 one minor girl aged about 12 years, who is to be referred, hereinafter, as "prosecutrix", (The name of the prosecutrix has not been indicated in this judgment by keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228A of IPC has been enacted and specifically keeping in mind the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court, for not disclosing the name of such victim in the judgment as reflected in the case cited as 2006 II AD (S.C.) 607 Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan.) being accompanied with her mother Lakhi Kumharin and neighbour Leela Devi, Smt. Ranu Sarkar, who is secretary of Mahila -:3:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. Samiti and Sarita Rao, Member of Mahila Samiti came to the Police Station Aditya Pur, Distt. West Singhbhom, Bihar and gave her statement before Inspector Saryu Paswan, which is EX. PW - 1/A. As per said statement of the prosecutrix, she is resident of village Manjhi Tola, Sanjay Nagar, P.S. Aditya Pur, Distt. West Singhbhom and earlier she had been working as maid servant at the house of one B.M. Prasad at Dindali Basti and was getting Rs. 150/- per month for cleaning utensils, cleaning floor and doing other households work. Ravindra Prasad, who is the son of said B.M. Prasad was staying at Bombay and his in-law's house was at Maango. On 18/1/91 Krishna Lata Prasad, wife of said Ravindra Prasad came to the house of said B.M. Prasad and took her for working as maid servant at her house at Bombay and she was taken from Manjhi Tola to Maango and from there Ravindra Prasad and his wife Krishna Lata along with their son Anurag Prasad, took her to Tata Nagar Railway Station and from there to Bombay -:4:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. by train and from there in a taxi to their Quarter at C - 98, Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra. She further added that at the house of Ravindra Prasad she was working as maid servant and doing works of cleaning floor, cleaning utensils, washing clothes, preparing food etc. She further added that said Ravindra Prasad used to leave by car for his office in the morning at about 8:00 a.m. and used to come back at about 1:00 p.m. for taking lunch and after taking lunch he used to leave for his office at about 2:00 p.m. and come back at about 6:00 p.m. After some days she came to know that said Ravindra Prasad has been working as Senior Personal Manager at Petro Chemical Company, Nago Thane, Raigarh. She further added that she was kept properly for about 3 - 4 months after her reaching there. She further added that said Ravindra Prasad was residing at 2nd Floor and his quarter comprised of two bedroom, one varandha, one balcony, one kitchen and latrine bathroom. Said Ravindra Prasad along -:5:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. with is wife and his son used to sleep in one room and she used to sleep on the floor in another room. She further added that said Ravindra Prasad committed rape upon her several times despite her protest and whenever she complaint about the same to Krishna Lata, wife of Ravindra Prasad, she used to blame her and cut her by blade on her chest, thigh, hand, face, tongue etc. and inflicted blow on her right hand by Lorhi on which she sustained fracture. Ravindra Prasad also used to got her burnt by cigarette buds. Krishna Lata, wife of Ravindra Prasad also used to put hot iron on her body and used to threw hot water on her body. She further added that about three months back mother of said Ravindra Prasad came from Manjhi Tola to the house of said Ravindra Prasad on the occasion of delivery of his wife and on 15/8/1993 she came along with mother of Ravindra Prasad to Aditya Pur and narrated about the incident to her relatives and others and also informed to police at Aditya Pur on which she was sent for -:6:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. medical examination to Dr. Siddhesh, where she was medically treated from 16/10/93 to 22/10/93. The aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, which is EX. PW - 1/A with her MLC, which is EX PW - 9/A along with covering letter dt. 16/12/93 EX. PW
- 1/C were sent by Sh. B.C. Verma, Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhom, Chaibasa to Superintendent of Police Raigarh, Maharashtra requesting him to take proper legal action against the offender as the atrocities against the prosecutrix had taken place at Quarter No. C - 98, Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra. Ultimately, in pursuance of the said statement of the prosecutrix, case was registered vide FIR/CR NO. 27/94, U/S 376/323/324/34 IPC on dt. 08/5/94 at P.S. Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra by PW - 8 S.I. M.M. Chandan of P.S. Nagothane and further investigation was taken up by him. During the course of investigation, both the accused persons, namely, Ravindra Prasad and Krishna Lata were arrested, statement of relevant witnesses were got -:7:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. recorded and after completion of the investigation chargesheet against both the accused was filed on dt. 09/11/94 in the concerned court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, who was pleased to commit the case to the court of Sessions vide order dt. 20/1/95. Thereafter when the case was pending trial before the court of Sh. S.B. Dhatrak, IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, Alibag, in compliance of order dt. 01/10/96 as passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition (criminal) No. 67/96, titled, "National Human Rights Commission Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others", case was transferred to Sessions Judge, Delhi and vide order dt. 18/12/96 as passed by Ld. Sessions Judge Delhi, case was assigned to the court of Ms. Aruna Suresh, the then Ld. A.S.J. Delhi and during the course of trial, the case was ultimately transferred to this court.
-:8:-S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc.
3. On hearing both the sides on the point of charge vide order on charge dt. 15/10/97, the corresponding charges for the offence punishable U/S 376 and U/S 324/34 IPC was framed against accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad and charge for offence punishable U/S 376/109 and 324/325/34 IPC was framed against accused Krishna Lata on dt. 04/11/97 to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. During the course of investigation, prosecution in support of its case got examined 10 prosecution witnesses, namely, Inspector Saryu Paswan, under whose supervision statement of the prosecutrix dt. 07/11/93 was recorded and prosecutrix was medically examined and thereafter he sent the original statement of the prosecutrix as well as her medical report to Superintendent of police Chaibasa, Distt. West Singhbhom, Bihar for onward transmission of same to S.P. -:9:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. Raigarh, Maharashtra for necessary action and said Inspector Saryu Paswan has been examined as PW - 1, HC B.K. Kuthey from police station Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra on being authorised by the I.O./S.I. M.M. Chandan have recorded statement of prosecutrix and statement of other witnesses at village Manjhi Tola, has been examined as PW - 2, the prosecutrix, who is the star witness has been examined as PW - 3, Leela Devi, who is the neighbour of the prosecutrix at Manjhi Tola, Aditya Pur as PW - 4, Ms. Gurbari, who is the maternal grand mother (Nani) of the prosecutrix with whom the prosecutrix had been residing from her childhood, has been examined as PW - 5, Smt. Ranu Sarkar, who is the Secretary of Mahila Samaj Samiti, Aditya Pur and is also a neighbour of the prosecutrix, has been examined as PW - 6, Jaiwant Keshav Jatav from Maharashtra, who is a witness to Panchnama EX. PW - 7/A, a formal witness has been examined as PW - 7, S.I. M.M. Chandan from P.S. Nagothane, -:10:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra, who happens to be the I.O. as PW - 8, Dr. Manorama Siddhesh, who had medically examined the prosecutrix on 16/10/93 and prepared her MLC EX. PW - 9/A, has been examined as PW - 9 and Sh. K.K. Rai, who is also a witness to panchnama EX. PW - 7/A, a formal witness as PW - 10.
5. After examination of aforesaid 10 prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of both the accused U/S 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded in which both the accused denied the allegation of prosecution and claimed to be innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Both the accused in their statement have denied to have taken the prosecutrix to their house for working as maid servant and to have caused any such injuries on her person. They further added that false allegation have been made against them by the prosecutrix at the instance of her -:11:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. relatives, Ranu Sarkar, Leela Devi and Gurbari to blackmail them and force them to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh being annoyed by the termination of service of the prosecutrix and her Nani by mother of accused Ravindra Prasad at his native village. After recording of statement of accused,one Lal Bihari Sahu, who is known to the accused persons has been examined as DW - 1 on behalf of the accused and thereafter D.E. was closed.
6. I have heard Sh. J.R. Priyani, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for both the accused, Ld. APP for the state and perused the relevant material as available on case record.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that both these accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and hence they deserve to be acquitted. It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel that as mother of accused -:12:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. Ravindra Prasad terminated the service of the prosecutrix and her Nani and their arrears of Rs. 3000/- could not be paid by her in time, therefore, the prosecutrix at the instance of her relative, Ranu Sarkar, Leela Devi, Gurbari, in order to blackmail accused to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh have falsely implicated them in this case and hence they deserve to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that there are several material contradictions in the deposition of various connected PWs which falsify the case of the prosecution and hence accused deserve to be acquitted. It is further added that there is considerable delay in the registration of the case. It is further added that as the statement EX. PW - 1/A had been recorded at the instance of PW Ranu Sarkar, which form the basis of the F.I.R. and the same cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. It is further added that the allegation of causing of injury on the person of the prosecutrix by both the accused and commission of rape by accused Ravindra Brij -:13:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. Mohan Prasad is falsified as the same are not supported from the medical evidence. It is further added that as the PW - 3 prosecutrix, have made several improvements/ contradiction in her deposition before the Court as compared to her police statement EX. PW - 1/A, therefore, her deposition cannot be treated as reliable. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the prosecutrix was never taken by the accused nor she had worked as maid servant at the house of accused and therefore there was no occasion on the part of the accused for causing any injury to her or committing rape by accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad upon her and hence both the accused deserve to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that the police statement of the PWs have been recorded by PW - 2 HC B.K. Kuthey in Marathi, whereas, said PWs do not know Marathi and therefore the same is fatal for prosecution. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise the prosecutrix is stated to have come back to Aditya Pur on 15/8/93, then why she was -:14:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. not taken for her medical examination earlier to 16/10/93 and why her statement was not recorded earlier to 7/11/93 and same create suspicion on the stand of prosecution and the accused persons deserve to be acquitted. Ld. Counsel have referred and relied upon the following judgment in support of his contention for acquittal of accused : -
(1) 1972 Crl. L.J. 1296, (2) 1983 Crl. L.J. 1105, (3) 2003 (3) JCC 1358, (4) 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 416, (5) 1970 Crl. L.J. 558. (6) AIR 2003 SC 818.
8. To the contrary it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that by examining 10 prosecution witnesses, prosecution have successfully established its case as against accused for the charged offence and therefore both the accused deserve to be convicted accordingly. It is also submitted by Ld. APP that the deposition of the prosecutrix, who has been examined as -:15:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. PW - 3 is found corroborated from the deposition of other connected PWs coupled with medical evidence and therefore both the accused deserve to be convicted accordingly. It is also added that when the deposition of prosecutrix is found corroborated from other PWs, mere delay in the registration of the case cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution and hence both the accused deserve to be convicted accordingly.
9. The first question that arises having significant bearing on the fate of this case is, "What was the age of the prosecutrix during the period of incident i.e. 1991 to 1993?" So far as this aspect is concerned, the age of prosecutrix is found mentioned as 12 years in her statement as recorded by the concerned police of P.S. Aditya Pur on dt. 07.11.93, which is EX. PW - 1/A, forming the basis of the F.I.R. Besides that PW
- 4 Leela Devi, who is the neighbour of the prosecutrix has -:16:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. deposed in the court that she knew prosecutrix being her neighbour and prosecutrix was aged about 10 years old when she was taken by Krishna Lata. Further more, PW - 5 Ms. Gurbari, maternal grand mother (Nani) of the prosecutrix with whom the prosecutrix was residing from her childhood, has deposed in the court that prosecutrix was taken by accused Krishna Lata for doing her household work to Bombay and at that time prosecutrix was aged about 10 years old and she remained there for about 3 years. Similarly, PW - 6 Smt. Ranu Sarkar, who is the neighbour of the prosecutrix has deposed before the court that she knew the prosecutrix, who was residing in her neighbourhood and on 15.10.93, prosecutrix was left in the locality by the mother of accused Ravindra Brij Mohan and by that time she was aged about 11/12 years old.
In the light of the aforesaid material as found available on the case record, it can be safely concluded that -:17:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. the prosecutrix was aged about 10 to 12 years during the period of incident i.e. 1991 to 1993.
10. Now, the next question that arises having significant bearing on the fate of this case is, "Whether the prosecutrix was taken for doing work as a maid servant by the accused persons in their house at C - 98, Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra during the period 1991 to 1993?" So far as this aspect is concerned, the prosecutrix in her complaint dt. 07/11/93 as recorded at P.S. Aditya Pur, which is EX. PW - 1/A, forming the basis of the F.I.R. stated that earlier she had been working as maid servant in the house of one B.M. Prasad and Ravindra Prasad, son of said B.M. Prasad was working at Bombay and his in laws house was at Maango. She further stated in the said complaint that on 18/1/1991 Krishna Lata Prasad, wife of said Ravindra Prasad came to the house of said B.M. Prasad and took her for working as maid -:18:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. servant at their house at Bombay and she was taken from Manjhi Tola to Maango and from there Ravindra Prasad, his wife Krishna Lata took her to Tata Nagar Railway station and from there to Bombay by train and from there in a taxi to their quarter at C - 98, Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra. She further added that at the house of said Ravindra Prasad she was working as maid servant and doing works of cleaning floor, cleaning utensils, washing clothes, preparing food etc. She has also narrated in detail about the composition of house of said Ravindra Prasad and about the atrocities committed by Ravindra Prasad and his wife Krishna Lata during her stay at their house. She has also sated that when mother of said Ravindra Prasad had come from Manjhi Tola to the house of said Ravindra Prasad on the occasion of delivery of his wife, she came back along with mother of Ravindra Prasad to Aditya Pur and narrated about the incident to her relatives and others and she was sent for medical examination to Dr. Manorma -:19:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. Siddhesh where she was medically examined from 16/10/93 to 22/10/93 and was discharged from the hospital on 22/10/93. Further more, the prosecutrix, who has been examined as PW - 3 deposed in the Court that she was residing with her maternal grand mother (Nani) at Manjhi Tola and she used to accompany her Nani, who was working in the house of parents of Ravindra Prasad and said Ravindra Prasad and his wife Krishna Lata Prasad, who were living in Bombay used to visit the house where her Nani was working and therefore at the instance of said Krishna Lata Prasad she agreed to accompany her to Bombay, which was about six years back. She further deposed that first of all said Krishna Lata took her to her mother's house at Maango from Manjhi Tola and on the same evening both the accused persons took her to Bombay by train and from Bombay she was taken to their house at Nagothane in the car and she started working in the house of accused persons, thereby cleaning floor, cleaning -:20:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. utensils, washing clothes, preparing food etc. She has also deposed that Ravindra Prasad used to leave the house for his duty by car at 8:00 a.m. and come back at 1:00 p.m. for taking lunch and after taking lunch go back to his duty and come back at about 6:00 p.m. She has also deposed that the house of Ravindra Prasad was at 2nd floor and there were two bed rooms, one balcony, one kitchen, one varandha, one latrine and bathroom and they had a son Anurag Prasad, aged about 5 - 6 years. She also deposed further that both the accused persons used to sleep in their bedroom along with their son and she used to sleep in adjacent bedroom on the floor. She has further deposed that she was treated nicely by the accused persons for 3 - 4 months after her arrival in their house. But, thereafter she was tortured and inflicted injuries by both the accused and she had narrated about the same in detail in her deposition. She has also stated that accused Ravindra Prasad used to come in her room during night time -:21:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. and commit rape upon her and she had added that the process of rape and torture continued for about 2 and 2-½ years i.e. till she stayed with the accused persons. She has also added that the mother of the accused Ravindra Prasad came to Bombay on the occasion of birth of daughter of accused persons and she brought her back from Bombay to Manjhi Tola. She has also deposed that mother of accused Ravindra Prasad on reaching back from Bombay kept her and got entire household work from her till that day evening and thereafter she was sent back to her house. On reaching her house, her family members asked her about the injuries which they noticed on her body but because of threat given by both the accused that her family members will be killed by brother of accused Krishna Lata who was in police, initially she did not disclose to anyone but ultimately disclosed that she had sustained injuries on her body at the hands of both the accused during her stay with them, on the same evening. She -:22:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. further deposed that after hearing about the same, her family members called members of Mahila Samiti of their village and Ms. Ranu Sarkar from Mahila Samiti came on the same evening and on 16/10/93 Ms. Ranu Sarkar took her to police station and she was referred to hospital and was examined by Dr. Manorma Siddhesh. She also deposed that after discharge from the hospital she came back to her house and after few days she gave statement to the police which is EX. PW - 1/A, bearing her signature at point - A. Similarly, PW - 4 Leela Devi, who is the neighbour of the prosecutrix has also deposed that she knew the prosecutrix being her neighbour and prosecutrix was taken by Krishna Lata when she was 10 years old and thereafter mother in law of Krishna Lata brought the prosecutrix back from Bombay and she saw several cut marks on the face, head and her teeth were also broken and on asking, the prosecutrix -:23:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. stated that Krishna Lata and her husband had caused injury upon her body. Thereafter, she along with another villager went to Ranu Sarkar along with the prosecutrix, who took them to the P.S. and thereafter police took prosecutrix to Dr. Siddhesh. PW - 3, the prosecutrix as well as PW - 4 Leela Devi denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that prosecutrix was never taken by the accused to Bombay.
Similarly, PW - 5 Ms. Gurbari, who is maternal grand mother (Nani) of the prosecutrix has deposed in the court to the effect that prosecutrix was brought up by her from childhood and she was taken by accused Krishna Lata for doing household work at their house and prosecutrix remained with them for about 3 years. She also added in her deposition that accused Ravindra Prasad visited his mother's house 2 - 3 times but did not bring the prosecutrix, however, he assured her that the prosecutrix was alright at his house. She further -:24:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. deposed that the mother of accused Ravindra Prasad visited at his house at Bombay on the occasion of delivery of his child and when she came back she brought the prosecutrix with her. She also deposed that when the prosecutrix came back, she found several cut marks on her body and was informed that injury/cut marks on her body were caused by the accused persons.
Similarly, PW - 6 Smt. Ranu Sarkar deposed in the court that she knew the prosecutrix as she was residing in her neighbourhood and on 15/10/93 the prosecutrix was left in the locality by mother of accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad and the maternal grand mother of the prosecutrix was working in the house of mother of accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad. She also deposed that when the prosecutrix was left by mother of accused Ravindra Brij Mohan on that day, she was called and found prosecutrix weeping and crying and -:25:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. having several cut marks on her body and on her asking prosecutrix disclosed that both the accused had tortured her and caused injuries and accused Ravindra Prasad committed rape upon her number of times. She also added that they took prosecutrix to police station and from there she was taken to Dr. Siddhesh for her medical examination. She further deposed that she disclosed all the facts to the doctor but one Anil Srivastava, who was brother - in - law of accused Ravindra and was Incharge of P.S. Bishat Pur, Jamshed Pur came there and police refused to register the case on the plea that the incident was of Maharashtra on which she met ASP/DSP of the area and gave application before Human Rights Commission and thereafter case was taken up at Bombay and afterwords transferred to Delhi. Besides that PW - 9 Dr. Manorma Siddhesh, who has medically examined the prosecutrix, has proved the MLC EX. PW - 9/A showing the details of the injury marks as observed by her on the -:26:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. person of the prosecutrix.
In the light of the aforesaid material as found available on the case record, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that the prosecutrix was never taken by the accused for working as maid servant at their house nor the prosecutrix had stayed with the accused persons at their house for working as maid servant. Even, said plea of accused is found falsified from the contents of their joint bail application dt. 26/4/94 (Registered as Misc. Appl. No. 211/94) which is duly supported with affidavit of accused no - 1, Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad as available on the case file. As in Para (2) of said bail application, it is found mentioned as under :-
"2. A maid servant known as Baby aged about 13 years was brought from Dindali Basti, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. She was staying the block, -:27:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. where applicants reside at Nagothane, between January 1992 till 14th of October, 1993. On 14th October she went to the village with mother of applicant no-1. ........................"
No doubt, the prosecutrix in her police statement EX PW - 1/A has stated that she came back to Aditya Pur with mother of accused Ravindra Prasad on 15/8/93 but it appears that she inadvertently stated the said date as 15/8/93 in place of 15/10/93 as it is revealed from the deposition of PW - 3 the prosecutrix, PW - 4 Leela Devi, PW - 5 Gurbari and PW - 6 Ranu Sarkar on the day when the prosecutrix came back to Aditya Pur, seeing her physical condition and narration of atrocities by her, she was taken to the police station and thereafter for medical examination to Dr. Manorma Siddhesh and MLC EX. PW - 9/A also support the said stand. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the case record, it can -:28:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. be safely concluded that the prosecutrix was taken by accused on 18/1/91 from Manjhi Tola, Aditya Pur to their house at C - 98, Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra for working as maid servant and ultimately she came back on 15/10/93 to Aditya Pur with the mother of accused Ravindra Prasad.
11. Now the next question that arises having significant bearing on the fate of this case is, "Whether this accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad committed rape upon prosecutrix and his wife accused Krishna Lata abetted him for the same and whether both the said accused caused injuries on the person of prosecutrix during her stay while working as maid servant in their house?" So far as this aspect is concerned, it is revealed from the case record that the PW - 3 prosecutrix deposed in the court that she was treated nicely by the accused persons for 2 - 3 months after her arrival in their house. She added that whenever she was unable to do work -:29:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. up to their expectations, accused Krishna Lata and her husband Ravindra used to cut her with blade on her arms, chest, back, rather on every part of her body including her head after gagging her mouth with piece of cloth. She further added in her deposition that she used to sleep in separate room on the floor and accused Ravindra Prasad used to come in that room during night time and commit rape upon her. She also added further that whenever she narrate the incident to his wife, she used to blame her stating that it was all her fault. She also added in her deposition that in the absence of Krishna Lata accused Ravindra used to commit rape upon her and whenever she resisted, accused Ravindra Prasad burnt her with cigarette buds. She further added that whenever she was unable to do work or prepare food for accused persons, Krishna Lata used to tie her mouth with piece of cloth and her hands and used to hit on back of her hand with Lorhi (batta i.e. stone which is used for grinding massala etc. on flat piece -:30:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. of stone generally used in house) and caused fracture on her right hand and gave blow on her mouth with said Lorhi and broke her two front teeth and cut her tongue with blade. The prosecutrix further deposed in the court that said process of rape and torture continued with her for about 2 - 2½ years i.e. till she stayed with the accused persons and ultimately mother of accused Ravindra had come to Bombay on the occasion of birth of daughter of accused persons and she brought her back to Manji Tola, Aditya Pur. The substantial part of said deposition of the prosecutrix regarding commission of rape by accused Ravindra Prasad upon her and concerning causing injury upon her by both the accused during her stay at the house of the accused while working as maid servant during the relevant period of 1991 to 1993 is also found corroborated from the content of the police statement of the prosecutrix dt. 07/11/1993 as recorded by police of P.S. Aditya Pur, which is EX. PW - 1/A, forming the basis of the -:31:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. F.I.R. relating to present case. Further more, the substantial part of the deposition of the PW - 3, prosecutrix in this respect is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW - 9 Dr. Manorma Siddhesh, who has medically examined the prosecutrix on 16/10/93 and have prepared her MLC EX. PW
- 9/A, showing the injury marks as observed by her on medical examination on the person of prosecutrix. Said PW
- 9 has interalia deposed in the court as under :-
"On examination I found that she was having a scar 2 inches x 1 inch on her right side eyebrow, a scar above the left eyebrow she was also having scars over chest (both sides), arm, hand, wrist, thigh, buttock, ankle measuring about 6"
to 1". She was also having vertical scar on her mons, there was also an old fracture on her right radius and ulna, there was also a cut mark on her left side -:32:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. of her tongue and two cut marks on her right side of her tongue, her upper incisor was broken, she was also having scar over her left side of buttock measuring about 3" to 2" and also a cut of 7" on her right buttock. She was also having a scar of burns on her bones and right buttock about 1 c.m. and there were other small scar marks also.
On the basis of my above examination, I gave my opinion that except the last one the other injuries she was having were caused to her by some sharp weapon and the last one was caused to her by some hot object. The old fracture and her incisor which was found broken by me was caused to her with some blunt object or by accident. The duration of the injuries were found by me between 6 months to 2 years. On examination of her vagina, the rape could -:33:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. not be confirmed by me as there was no evidence of rape after six months, but patient was not virgin."
The deposition of prosecutrix, PW - 3 on material aspect is also found corroborated from deposition of other connected PWs, namely, PW - 4 Leela Devi, neighbour of the prosecutrix, PW - 5 Smt. Gurbari, maternal grand mother (Nani) of the prosecutrix and PW - 6 Smt. Ranu Sarkar, who is the neighbour of the prosecutrix besides Secretary of the Mahila Samiti.
12. The substantive part of the deposition of PW - 3 prosecutrix, PW - 4 Smt. Leela Devi, PW - 5 Ms. Gurbari could not be demolished in the cross - examination by Ld. Defence Counsel. No doubt some sort of contradictions have been brought on record in the cross - examination of said PWs but I am of the considered view that the said discrepancies are -:34:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. bound to occur in the deposition of various witnesses being usual and natural and even otherwise as they are found to be formal in nature without striking at the root of the matter and the same cannot be treated as fatal for the prosecution. In the case reported as, "JT 1999 (9) SC 43 State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and another", it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
"In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to laps of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like."
It was further observed in the said judgment as under -:35:- S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. :-
"The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial."
In recent case reported as, "JT 2006 (1) SC 645 "Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana", it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
"It is well-established principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity."-:36:- S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc.
13. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel that no external injury was found on the private part of the prosecutrix and same negate the allegation of the commission of rape as against the prosecutrix. As I am of the considered view that mere absence of external injury on private part of prosecutrix cannot be treated as conclusive ground to falsify the stand of commission of rape as against prosecutrix. My view in this regard is also found supported from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as 1998 (8) SCC 635, "Ranjit Hajarika Vs. State of Assam." Similar view was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as 2006 VI AD (SC) 115, "State Tamil Nadu Vs. Ravi @ Nehru."
14. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that as there was considerable delay in the registration of the F.I.R., same is fatal for the case -:37:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. of the prosecution as the prosecutrix came back to Aditya Pur on 15/8/93, whereas her statement by police has been recorded on 7/11/93 and F.I.R. has been registered on 8/5/94. No doubt, the prosecutrix in her police statement EX. PW - 1/A has stated that she came back to Aditya Pur with mother of accused Ravindra Prasad on 15/8/93 but it appears that she inadvertently stated the said date as 15/8/93 in place of 15/10/93. As it is revealed from the deposition of PW - 3 prosecutrix, PW - 4 Smt. Leela Devi, PW - 5 Smt. Gurbari and PW - 6 Smt. Ranu Sarkar that on the day when the prosecutrix came to Aditya Pur, seeing her physical condition and narration of her atrocities by her she was taken to police station and thereafter for medical examination to Dr. Manorma Siddhesh, who has medically examined the prosecutrix vide her MLC EX. PW - 9/A, which is of dt. 16/10/93. Besides that, the accused at Para (2) of their joint bail application dt. 26.4.94 (registered as Misc. Appl. No. 211/94) which is duly -:38:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. supported with affidavit of accused no - 1, Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad as available on the case file, have taken the sand that their maid servant indicating thereby the prosecutrix went back to her village Aditya Pur with the mother of accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad on 14/10/93 and hence she might have reached Aditya Pur on next day i.e. 15/10/93. Further more, from the deposition of PW - 6, it is also reflected that she had accompanied with the prosecutrix to P.S. Aditya Pur from where she was admitted in Nursing Home of Dr. Siddhesh, who was doctor at Government Hospital and they have disclosed all the facts to doctor but one Anil Srivastava, who was Incharge of P.S Bishat Pur, Jamshedpur and was the brother-in-law of accused Ravindra Prasad came there and therefore the police refused to register the case on the plea that it is incident of Maharashtra and case would be registered there. On this, they met ASP, DSP of the area and also gave application before Human Rights Commission and thereafter -:39:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. case was taken up at Bombay and ultimately transferred to Delhi. It is also revealed from the case record that the police statement dt. 7/11/93 as recorded by police of P.S. Aditya Pur, which is EX PW - 1/A along with MLC of the prosecutrix EX. PW - 9/A with covering letter dt. 16/12/93 EX. PW - 1/C were sent by Sh. B.C. Verma, Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhom, Chaibasa to Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, Maharashtra requesting him to take proper legal action against the offender, as the atrocities against the prosecutrix had taken place at Quarter No C - 98, Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra and ultimately in pursuance of the said statement of the prosecutrix, case was registered vide FIR/CR No. 27/94, U/S 376/323/324/34 IPC on dt. 08/5/94 at P.S. Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra by PW - 8 SI. M.M. Chandan and further investigation was taken up by him.
In the light of he aforesaid material as available on -:40:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. the case record, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the delay in the registration of the case in the present matter cannot be treated as fatal for the prosecution and my said view is also found supported from the following judgments as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India :-
1) 1991 Supp (1) SCC 372, "Zahoor & Ors. Vs State of U.P."
2) 1991 Supp (1) SCC 536, "Tara Singh & Ors Vs State of Punjab."
15. Further more, I am of the considered view that in criminal trial, the finding of conviction can be based even on the strength of deposition of single PW, in case it is found trust worthy and reliable as it is quality and not quantity of the evidence that count and my said view is found supported from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, In the case reported as JT 1999 (8) S.C. 537, "Sheelam Ramesh and another Vs. state of A.P." it was observed by -:41:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
"Courts are concerned with the quality and not quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on a sole evidence of a witness, if it inspire confidence."
Further more, in "State of M.P. Vs. Dayal Sahu, VII(2005) SLT 364 = IV (2005) CCR 101 (SC) = 2005 Crl.L.J. 4375, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the question as to whether the testimony of the prosecutrix, before it could be acted upon, require corroboration or not and while considering the said question, it was held as under :-
"Once the statement of
prosecutrix inspires confidence and
accepted by the Court, as such,
conviction can be passed only on solitary -:42:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the Courts for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Non - examination of doctor and non - production of doctor's report would not be fatal to the prosecution case, if the statement of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses inspire confidence."
Further more, in (2004) 1 SCC 421, "State of Punjab Vs. Ramdev Singh," it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
-:43:-S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. "Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity - it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman ie. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in "Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs. Subhra Chakraborty" (1996) 1 SCC 490 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 133 : AIR 1996 SC 922 the entire psychology of a woman and pushes -:44:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India (in short "the constitution"). The courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisions.
16. Besides that, in a recent case, 2006 II AD (S.C.) 607, "Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan" in para-11, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :- -:45:- S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. "In the Indian Setting refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred.
She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is -:46:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case."
17. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel, who has pointed out certain lapse on the part of the I.O. I am of the considered view that mere lapse on the part of the I.O. cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution specifically when the deposition of prosecution witnesses are found trustworthy and reliable. In the case reported as "State of U.P. Vs. Hari Mohan and Anr." 2000 (VIII) AD (SC) 389, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that, "failure of the I.O. cannot be allowed to become escape route for release of the accused." To the similar effect there is another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as "Ambika -:47:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. Prasad Vs. State." 1997 (V) AD (SC) 467. In another case reported as "Manoj @ Mannu Vs. State of Delhi" 2000 (I) AD (DELHI) 67, it was observed by our Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"That the criminal justice should not be made a casualty for wrong committed by the I.O. and therefore the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on account of lapse committed by the I.O."
In another case as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as (2003) 1 SCC 534, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
"Mere faulty investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. For the fault of the prosecution, the perpetrators of a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scotfree."-:48:- S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc.
18. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix as the mother of the accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad terminated the service of prosecutrix and her Nani and their arrears of Rs. 3000/- could not be paid by her in time so in order to blackmail the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, the accused have been falsely implicated in this case. I do not see any reason as to why the prosecutrix PW - 3, who is a minor girl of less than 12 years or her maternal grand mother (Nani) PW - 5 Ms. Gurbari would go to the extent of casting such serious allegation of commission of rape by accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad upon the prosecutrix and causing multiple injury by both the accused on the person of prosecutrix, on only being aggrieved by the termination of their service by the mother of accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad. I am of the considered view that -:49:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. a girl in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated.
19. I am of the considered view that the judgment as referred by the Ld. Counsel for the accused are not applicable in view of the direct incriminating material against accused as available on the present case record.
20. In the light of the aforesaid material as found available on the case record and keeping in mind that deposition of the prosecutrix PW - 3, which is found corroborated from the deposition of PW - 9 Dr. Manorma -:50:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. Siddhesh coupled with her MLC EX. PW - 9/A and from the deposition of PW - 4 Smt. Leela Devi, neighbour of the deceased, PW - 5 Smt. Gurbari, maternal grand mother (Nani) of the prosecutrix and PW - 6 Smt. Ranu Sarkar, neighbour of the prosecutrix, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad can be held liable for commission of rape upon the prosecutrix and causing multiple injury on the person of the prosecutrix during the course of her stay while working as maid servant during the period 1991 to 1993 and hence can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 376 IPC and U/S 324 IPC. Similarly, the accused Krishna Lata Prasad can be held liable for causing multiple injury on the person of the prosecutrix and also for causing fracture on the right hand of the prosecutrix by Lorhi and hence can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 324/325 IPC. However, since there is nothing on record to establish the fact that the accused Krishna Lata Prasad had -:51:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. abetted/instigated/aided her husband accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad for commission of rape upon the prosecutrix, hence, said accused Krishna Lata Prasad cannot be held liable for offence punishable U/S 376 read with section 109 IPC.
22. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad has been found guilty for offence punishable U/S 376/324 IPC and accused Krishna Lata Prasad has been found guilty for offence punishable U/S 324/325 IPC and are convicted accordingly. Let, these convict be heard separately on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (B.R. KEDIA)
On 22nd March 2007. Addl. Sessions Judge
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi.
-:52:-
S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J.
TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI
S.C. NO. 42/06
FIR/C.R. NO. 27/94
P.S. Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh (Maharashtra) U/Sec. 376/324/325/34 IPC (Convicted) State vs. 1. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad, S/O B.M. Prasad, R/O C - 98, I.P.C.L. Colony, Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra.
2. Krishna Lata Prasad, W/O Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad, R/O C - 98, I.P.C.L. Colony, Nagothane, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra.
ORDER ON SENTENCE :-
In pursuance of judgment dt. 22.3.07 as passed by this court whereby convicting the accused Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad for offence punishable U/S 376/324 IPC and -:53:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. accused Krishna Lata Prasad for offence punishable U/S 324/325 IPC, I have heard Sh. J.R. Priyani, Adv. Ld. Defence Counsel for both the convict, Sh. L.C. Jain, Ld. P.P. for the State and perused the case record for passing this order on sentence.
2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the convict that the convict Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad was working as Personal Manager in Indian Petro Chemical Corporation but he has already been dismissed from the service and presently working as Manager (Administration) in 'Mahindra Company' at Nasik.
It is further added that he is the only earning male member of his family comprising himself, his wife, two minor children and his widow mother. It is further added that both the convict have already undergone the hardships of facing the case proceeding for more than a decade. It is also added that both the convict are first offender and having clean antecedent and -:54:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. are not involved in any other case. Concerning convict Krishna Lata, it is also added by Ld. Counsel that she is a lady aged about 42 years and having the responsibility to look after her two minor children and hence urge for taking lenient consideration upon the convict and also for granting the benefit of Probation upon the convict Krishna Lata Prasad.
3. On the contrary, it is submitted by the Ld. P.P. for the State that since this convict Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad is found to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix, who is a minor girl aged about 10 to 12 years and both the convict are found to have caused multiple injury on the person of the prosecutrix, who was working as their maid servant, the convict do not deserve any leniency and hence exemplary punishment be awarded to them.
-:55:-S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions from both the sides and perusing the case record, as convict Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad, who was working at high managerial post, is found not only to have caused multiple injury but also to have committed rape several times upon the prosecutrix and convict Krishna Lata Prasad is found to have caused multiple injury including fracture upon the person of the prosecutrix, who was a poor, innocent minor girl aged about 10 to 12 years during relevant period of 1991 to 1993, while she was residing and working as maid servant at the house of these convict, I have no hesitation to express my inability to display any leniency upon these convict. While dealing with punishment aspect in the case of rape upon a victim aged about 10 years old, it was observed by our Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a recent case reported as 134 (2006) DLT 119 (DB) Mohd. Alam Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi at Para - 48 as under :- -:56:- S.C. NO. 42/06
St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. "What then is the punishment that is required to be given. As mentioned above, in the absence of any guidelines in this regard, we can only go by some recent precedents set by the Supreme Court. In "Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra)", where the victim was 8 years old, the Supreme Court awarded the minimum punishment of 10 years imprisonment. In "State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa, III (2000) SLT 228 = 1 (2000) CCR 338 (SC) - (2000) 4 SCC 75", the victim was again 8 years old and the Supreme Court awarded the minimum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. In "Bantu @ Naresh Giri Vs. State of M.P., VII (2001) SLT 557 = IV (2001) CCR 252 (SC) = (2001) 9 SCC 615", the victim was only 6 years old and the Supreme Court awarded the minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. Similarly, in "State of M.P. Vs. Santosh Kumar, V (2006) SLT 506 = -:57:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. III (2006) CCR 142 (SC) = (2006) 6 SCC 1"
the victim was 6 years of age and the Supreme Court awarded the minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment."
5. In view of above, I consider it appropriate to impose upon the convict Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months for his conviction for offence punishable U/S 376 IPC and R.I. for 2 years besides fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month for his conviction for offence punishable U/S 324 IPC. As against convict Krishna Lata Prasad, she is awarded R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month in pursuance of her conviction for offence punishable U/S 324 IPC and R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month for her conviction for offence -:58:- S.C. NO. 42/06 St. Vs. Ravindra Brij Mohan Prasad etc. punishable U/S 325 IPC. However, it is made clear that all the sentences of R.I. as awarded upon both the convict will run concurrently. Concerned Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar be intimated accordingly.
5. Let, a copy of the judgment dt. 22.3.07 and copy of this order on sentence be given free of cost to both the convict immediately.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (B.R. KEDIA)
On 23rd March, 2007, Addl. Sessions Judge
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi.