Delhi District Court
State vs . Mool Chand on 29 June, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No.14/13)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0303242012
State Vs. Mool Chand
FIR No. : 202/12
U/s : 363/376 (2)(f) IPC
P.S. : Ashok Vihar
State Vs. Mool Chand
s/o Sh. Ram Avadh,
r/o House No. N207/759,
Jailorwala Bagh, Ashok Vihar,
PhaseII, Delhi.
Date of institution of case 30.10.2012
Date on which, judgment has been reserved 31.05.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment 28.06.2013
JUDGMENT:
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2012 information regarding rape of a 6/7 year old girl, resident of H. No.A107, Jailorwala Bagh, PhaseII, Delhi, was received and recorded vide DD No.16A i.e. Ex.PW7/A at PS Ashok Vihar. The said information was given to PW13 SI Rajender Singh through telephone and PSI Suman Bajaj was also sent to the spot where on inquiry by PW13 SI Rajender Singh public SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 1 of 32 2 persons disclosed that the victim girl, with whom the incident taken place, had been taken to BJRM Hospital by PCR. The PW17 PSI Suman met PW9 Smt. Maharaji, mother of victim child at the spot and they both reached at BJRM Hospital where the victim child met them. The PW17 PSI Suman obtained MLC Ex.PW4/A of the victim child, whereupon the concerned doctor had mentioned 'alleged history of sexual assault'. The PW17 seized sexual assault evidence collection kit and sample seal, after obtaining the same from the concerned doctor, who had medically examined the prosecutrix. Thereafter PW17 along with the victim child and her mother PW9 Smt. Maharaji returned back to PS, where PW9 Smt. Maharaji gave her statement Ex.PW9/A, wherein she stated that she was residing at House No.A107, Jailorwala Bagh, PhaseII, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, with her family and that she was working in a factory at Wazirpur Industrial area. She further stated that she used to leave for work at 9:00 AM and that on 17.08.2012 she went for work at 9.00 a.m as usual leaving behind her daughter, aged about 7 years, and her son, aged about 10 years, who were playing in a park outside their home. At that time, her neighbour Mool Chand s/o Sh. Ram Avadha was also sitting in the said park near the school. She further stated that at about 10:00 AM, her son Shailesh came to factory and told her that her daughter was weeping bitterly and she immediately returned back home with her son and asked the prosecutrix as to why she was crying and that prosecutrix disclosed to her that when she was digging the mud in the park, their neighbour Mool Chand came there and asked her why she was digging the mud from there and told her that he would show her good mud and thereafter he took her in his lap to the bushes in the park and made her lie down on the grass. She further told the complainant that the accused took off her underwear and also took of his underwear and closed her mouth with his hand and laid down on her and committed SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 2 of 32 3 wrong act with her and that in the meantime two boys came there and they started giving beatings to accused Mool Chand who ran away from there. The said boys brought back the prosecutrix to her home. Complainant then stated that the prosecutrix was complaining of pain in private parts and stomach and that she disclosed all the facts to her husband after he returned back from his duty and he in turn made a call at 100 number. Police came and took her daughter and husband to the hospital where the prosecutrix was medically examined. Complainant prayed that action be taken against accused Mool Chand, who had committed wrong act with her daughter. 2 On the basis of said complaint, case FIR No. 202/12, Ex. PW15/A u/S. 363/376 IPC, was registered against accused at PS Ashok Vihar. Investigations were carried out. Accused was arrested. The statement of prosecutrix was got recorded u/s. 164 CrPC. The case property was sent to FSL. After completion of the investigation and recording of statement of witnesses, the charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court for trial.
3 Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charges for the offence under Sections 363/376(2)(f) IPC were framed against the accused Mool Chand, however, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses.
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 3 of 32
4
Prosecutrix and other public witnesses
5 The PW1 is the prosecutrix in the present case. Her statement was partly
recorded by the predecessor Court in "camera proceedings with wooden partition". She was put certain preliminary questions to ascertain her competence as witness and after being satisfied that witness understood the sanctity of truth and was capable of giving rational answers, her statement was recorded. However, administration of oath was dispensed with considering the tender age of the witness. In the said statement witness deposed as under : "I know accused Mool Chand who is residing in front of our gali. I can identify the accused if shown to me.
At this stage the wooden partition in the court room was removed and the witness pointed towards the accused and identified him correctly. Thereafter, the wooden partition was restored to its original position.
I do not know the date, month and year of the incident. On the day of incident I was digging mud in Ashok Vihar near my house. It was around 5 p.m. Two bhaiya came there and they gave beatings to Mool Chand and me, as Mool Chand had taken me in the bushes. He put off my Kachi and he also removed his underwear and laid down on me. I felt pain on my private part (Mujhe Dukh Raha Tha). Those two bhaiyas slapped Mool Chand and thereafter those two bhaiyas took me to my house. When my mother came to house I narrated her all the incident. When my father came to SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 4 of 32 5 house, then my mother told him all the incident and thereafter, my father made a telephone call to the police. Police came to our house. I was taken to hospital where I was medically examined. Police made enquiries from me. My wearing clothes were seized in the hospital. My statement was also recorded in the Court u/s.164 CrPC.
The statement of witness u/s.164 CrPC was taken out from a sealed envelope sealed with the seal of SKS and was read over to the witness who admitted having made such a statement and same was then exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. The PW1 further deposed that : I am studying in MCD primary school, Ashok Vihar, Phase2. Certain leading question on the aspect of the time of the alleged incident were put to witness by Ld. Addl.P.P with the permission of the court. The witness termed it It is correct that the incident had taken place at around 9:30 or 10 a.m. in the morning. Further examinationinchief of the witness was deferred on that day due to nonproduction of case property.
6 The case was thereafter transferred in this Court on 28.02.2013 and the further statement of prosecutrix was recorded on 01.05.2013. Further the statement of witness/PW1 was recorded in the chamber in presence of support person Ms. Vandana Chauhan, Advocate from DCWA. Learned counsel Sh. S.K. Sengar and learned Additional PP were also present. The witness was again put certain preliminary questions to ascertain her competence as witness and after being satisfied that witness understood the sanctity of truth and was capable of giving rational answers, her SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 5 of 32 6 statement was recorded further. However, administration of oath was dispensed with considering the tender age of the witness. In the said statement witness identified the clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident and the said frock and the underwear were exhibited as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively. 7 The witness was crossexamined at length. Her crossexamination was recorded in questionanswer form and during her crossexamination she deposed as under : "Q. Aaj aap kiske sath aayi ho Court me ?
Ans. Papa, mummy aur chota bhaiya ke sath.
Q. Apko mummy papa ne bataya tha ki apko aaj kya
kahana hai court me ?
Ans. Mummy ne kaha tha jo tumahare sath hua hai, wohi
batana hai.
Q. Kya hua tha yeh bhi bataya tha ?
Ans. Unhone kaha ki Mool Chand ne tumhe pakad kar jo
kara woh batana.
Q. Jis din aap mitti khodne gayi thi aur aapke ghar par
kaun kaun tha ?
Ans. Mummy thi. Chintu bhai dukan par tha. Papa mandi
gaye the.
Q. Waha par park me log aa ja rahe the ?
Ans. Jab mitti khod rahi thi tab log aa ja rahe the. Mool
Chand aaya tab koi nahi tha, sab piche the. Baad me log aaye.
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 6 of 32
7
Q. Park se aapka ghar kitna dur hai ?
Ans. Thoda sa chalna padata hai (the witness is unable to
explain the distance or the time taken to cover the distance between the park and her jhuggi).
Q. Mool Chand aaya toh usne apse kya kaha ?
Ans. Ki yaha par mitti kyu khod rahi hai.
Q. Phir kya hua ?
Ans. Mujhko bola achhi mitti dikhata hu.
Q. Woh achhi mithi dikhane kaha le gaya ?
Ans. Park me.
Q. Woh jaha mitti dikha raha tha waha par log the ?
Ans. Nahi.
Q. Kya waha par mitti dikhai thi aapko ?
Ans. Ha.
Q. Waha par dono bhaiya kab aaye ?
Ans. (The witness has stated in her examination in chief that
two bhaiya had come there and given beatings to Mool Chand. Her memory has been refreshed regarding the previous statement made by her and then she has answered as under :).
Jab woh mere sath kar chuka tha tab aaye.
Q. Jab Mool Chand ne kachhi uttari tab aap chilaye the ?
Ans. Usne kachhi uttari thi. Apni Kachhi bhi uttari. Me Chilayi, mera muh dab liya. Maine kata, tab bhi mera muh nahi chhoda.
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 7 of 32
8
Q. Woh dono bhaiya Mool Chand ko bhi aapke ghar laye
the ?
Ans. (The witness has stated in her examination in chief that
the two bhaiyas had brought her back to her house. The memory of witness has been refreshed qua the previous statement and she has answered as under:).
Usko nahi laye the, wahi chhod diya tha. Mool Chand bhag kar company me chala gaya tha.
Q. Jab bhaiya aapko ghar le gaye tab mummy ghar par
thi ?
Ans. Nahi mummy didi ke ghar me pani bhar rahi thi.
Q. Toh aapke ghar par kaun tha uss samay ?
Ans. Meri chhoti behein Nisha thi.
Q. Phir mummy kab aayi thi ?
Ans. Mummy baad me aayi thi, pehle maine nahi bataya tha,
jab mummy ne mara tha tab bataya tha. Meri behein Nisha ne aur Shailesh bhaiya ne papad khaya mere liye aadha bachaya. Maine nahi kaya kyonki mera peth dukh raha tha.
Q. Apke mummy papa ka pehle kabhi Mool Chand se
jhagada hua tha ?
Ans. Kabhi nahi hua.
Q. Mool Chand ne apke sath koi galatkam nahi kiya tha ?
Ans. Kara tha.
Q. Mummy ke kehne se aap Mool Chand ke khilaf galatbat
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 8 of 32
9
bol rahe ho ?
Ans. Nahi."
At the time of her deposition, the witness was provided with colours and papers to make comfortable and the drawing made by the witness on that day were also retained and annexed with her testimony as Ex. P1 (colly). 8 Master Shailesh, brother of victim child, who has been put forth as an eye witness to the incident, was examined as PW14. Being a tender age child of 9 years, the testimony of this witness was also recorded in camera proceedings. Certain preliminary questions were put to the witness to ascertain if he is capable of understanding questions and answering them reasonably. The questions put to this witness in court specifically mentioned name of prosecutrix but same has not been reproduced herein to protect identity of the victim child. The proceedings wherein statement of PW14 were recorded are reproduced herein under : "Q. Who is prosecutrix ?
Ans. She is my younger sister.
Q. What had happened with your sister ?
Ans. On that day, I had gone with her to dig mud to plaster
(lipna potna) courtyard of our house.
Q. Then what happened ?
Ans. Mool Chand came there. He slapped my sister and
told her to come with him saying that 'mein tujhko badiya mitti dilwa dunga'. He took my sister in his lap and went away.
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 9 of 32
10
At this stage, witness has identified accused Mool
Chand, who is sitting in the Court, in JC.
Q. Then what happened ?
Ans. I ran to my mother to tell her. My mother was in a
company where she is working.
Q. Then what happened ?
Ans. When I was coming with my mother, I saw two
bhaiyas bringing prosecutrix. They were also bringing Mool Chand with them and were giving beatings to him. At that time, prosecutrix was crying.
Q. Then what happened ?
Ans. After coming to our house, Mool Chand ran away
from there after free himself from grip of bhaiyas.
Q. Then what happened ?
Ans. Prosecutrix told everything to my mother. My father
also came and he was also told about it.
Q. What happened to two bhaiyas who had dropped
prosecutrix ?
Ans. They went away. They were not known to me. I do
not know where they went."
9 The witness was also crossexamined by learned defence counsel for
accused. During his crossexamination, PW14 deposed as under : SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 10 of 32 11 "Q. Did you visit your mother's factory prior to the date of incident ?
Ans. Yes.
Q. Did you go there of your own or with someone ?
Ans. I had gone with my mother.
Q. What are the timings of your school ?
Ans. My school timings are from 12:00 Noon to 5:00 6:00
PM.
Q. Does prosecurtix go to school ?
Ans. Yes.
Q. What are her school timings ?
Ans. Her school timings are from 8:00 AM to 12:00 Noon.
Q. Did prosecutrix go to school on that day ?
Ans. No.
Q. Do you go to school on that day ?
Ans. My school is from 12:00 Noon and so I thought I
would bring the mud and then go to school.
Q. Who had sent you to bring mud ?
Ans. My mother had told me to bring mud and to keep it.
She said that when she will return back, then she would do Lipai.
Q. Did Police uncle / aunty ask you anything ?
Ans. One aunty, who has come today, had asked me (the
witness is referring to IO W/SI Rajesh, who is present today in civil clothes).
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 11 of 32
12
Q. With whom you have come to Court today ?
Ans. With my parents. My sister (prosecutrix) has also
come.
Q. Were you told by someone to tell whatever you have
stated today?
Ans. No.
Q. Did police aunty tell you what you were to tell in the
Court today?
Ans. No.
Q. Did your father and Mool Chand have a quarrel over
filling of water before the incident ?
Ans. No. Mool Chand used to come to my house
everyday. He used to sit and watch TV at my house. He also brought kerosene oil for our house some times.
Q. Have you ever visited PS ?
Ans. Yes, I have gone there once when aunty had called
me.
Q. Do you remember the date of your visit ?
Ans. No.
Q. I put it to you that whatever you had stated today has
been told to you by your parents ?
Ans. It is incorrect."
10 The PW9, Smt. Maharaji is the mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed that
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 12 of 32
13
she was working in a factory at Wazirpur and that she went for work at about 9:00 AM. She further deposed that about a year back, in the summer season on Friday, she went to her factory as usual at 9:00 AM leaving her son Shailesh and daughter (prosecutrix) at home. At about 10:00 AM, her son Shailesh came to the factory and told her that prosecutrix was weeping bitterly and was complaining of stomach ache and on hearing this, she returned home and found that prosecutrix was weeping. When PW9 asked prosecutrix reason for her weeping, she informed PW9 that accused Mool Chand, who was their neighbour, had taken her towards the bushes in the park where she was digging mud with her brother Shailesh, took off her undergarments and also took off his undergarments and put his urinary organ into her urinary organ. She further told PW9 that two bhaiyas came and gave beatings to accused and that accused managed to escape from there and that those two boys brought prosecutrix back to home. The prosecutrix complained about pain in her stomach and private parts. The PW9 deposed that on hearing this, she too started weeping and on hearing the same, her neighbours came. Somebody informed husband of PW9, who in turn gave a call to Police and that police came to the spot and took prosecutrix for medical examination and thereafter they all went to Police Station where her statement Ex.PW9/A was recorded. The PW9 identified her thumb impression on the said statement. She also identified her thumb impression on Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C i.e. the arrest memo and the disclosure statement of the accused. The PW9 further stated that statement of prosecutrix was recorded in the Police Station as well as in the Court and that she and her husband were asked to take proper care of the prosecutrix and to send her to school daily and that PW9 and her husband gave in writing to do so vide Ex.PW9/D. The PW9 identified the clothes of prosecutrix i.e. her frock as Ex.P1 and underwear as Ex.P2.
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 13 of 32
14
11 During her crossexamination PW9 stated that she had six children and that
prosecutrix was her fourth born child. She also gave the two other pet names by which prosecutrix was called at home. From further crossexamination PW9 it is brought out that she was not knowing name and address of the factory where she was working. The PW9 could not tell name of the two boys, who had brought prosecutrix back to her home. She also stated that her husband was informed about the incident by her neighbours. She could not recollect how many times her statement was recorded by the police. The PW9 further stated that she was taken by the police to the park where incident had taken place. She denied that she had tutored her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix to depose in the Court in the manner told by her. The PW9 admitted that generally the water supply in their area was through tanker because jhuggi dwellers did not have their separate connection and that there was a big line of people in the area for taking water from the tanker. She, however, denied that two days prior to the incident a hot conversation had taken place between her husband and accused as accused was trying to take water from tanker without line or that for this reason accused had been falsely implicated in the case.
12 The PW10, Sh. Ramsamuj, is the father of the prosecutrix. He deposed that he was doing the work of juice seller on a wooden cart (rehri) and that on 17.08.2012, it was a Friday and that he had gone for his work and that when he returned home, he was informed by his wife that prosecutrix was complaining of pain in her stomach and private parts and that she also told PW10 that accused Mool Chand, their neighbour, had committed rape upon prosecutrix in the park and that thereafter PW10 enquired from SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 14 of 32 15 prosecutrix who reiterated the said facts. The prosecutrix also told PW10 that two passersby had brought her back to the house. The PW10 further deposed that on hearing this he tried to search for accused and thereafter he called Police at hundred number and that police came and took him and his daughter to BJRM Hospital where prosecutrix was medically examined. He also stated that he was not knowing about two boys, who had brought prosecutrix home and that he had given school certificate of the prosecutrix to the Police and had also given undertaking vide Ex.PW9/D to take proper care of the prosecutrix.
13 During his crossexamination PW10 denied that accused had been falsely implicated in the case due to altercation over taking of water from the tanker. Formal witnesses 14 The PW8, Indu Bala, Principal, produced record from MCD Primary School, Pocket A1, Ashok Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi52, where prosecutrix had been studying. He stated that prosecutrix was admitted in Ist class in their school on the basis of admission form filled by Sh. Ram Samuj, father of the child and affidavit of Smt. Maharaji Devi, mother of the child, wherein the date of birth of child was mentioned as "31.08.2005". She proved photocopy of the said admission form and affidavit as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively. She further deposed that prosecutrix was studying in their school in 3rd class at present. She proved the photocopy of relevant entry No.4584 of admission register as Ex.PW8/C. She further proved the original certificate of date of birth of child issued by her school as Ex.PW8/D. SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 15 of 32 16 Doctor witnesses 15 The PW4, Dr. Vaibhav, was posted as CMO at BJRM Hospital on 17.08.2012. He deposed that on that day prosecutrix aged about 7 years, was brought to hospital by her father and was medically examined by Dr. Shabir, the then JR, under his supervision and that after examination, the patient was referred to SR Gynecology for further medical examination. He identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Shabir on the MLC of the prosecutrix and proved the same as Ex.PW4/A. 16 The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Niyati in the gynecology department of BJRM Hospital, however, the said doctor was on maternity leave and PW12 Dr. Latika was deputed in her place to depose qua the MLC of the prosecutrix. The PW12 Dr. Latika deposed that on 17.08.2012 Dr. Niyati had examined the prosecutrix and gave her observations on her MLC Ex.PW4/A wherein she observed that "vulval forchette was congested and minimal bleeding was present ; para urethal area was congested; hymen had a fresh small tear with bleeding". She further deposed that on basis of these findings, Dr. Niyati opined that "the findings were suggestive of sexual abuse with trial of penetration which caused hymenal injury and congestion." 17 The PW11, Dr. R.S. Mishra, was deputed in place of Dr. Mohit Tiwari and Dr. Ranvir Kumar. He deposed that on 17.08.2012 Dr. Mohit Tiwari was working as CMO in the hospital and that on that day patient Mool Chand (accused) was examined SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 16 of 32 17 by Dr. Manoranjan, JR, under supervision of Dr. Mohit Tiwari in casualty with alleged history of sexual assault (as accused) and that after examination, patient was referred to SR Surgery where he was examined by Dr. Ranvir Kumar, who gave opinion after examination that "it does not appear that accused cannot do sexual act". Dr. R.S. Mishra identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Manoranjan, Dr. Mohit Tiwari and Dr.Ranvir Kumar on the MLC of accused and proved the same as Ex.PW11/A. Police Witnesses 18 The PW2, HC Sudhir Kumar, is the photographer of the Crime Team, who had gone to the spot i.e. Jhuggi No.A107,Jailorwala Bagh, with Mobile Crime Team Incharge and other staff and taken eight photographs of the place of incident with digital camera. He proved the photographs as Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A8 and CD of the photographs as Ex.PW2/B. 19 The PW5, SI Sanjeev Verma, was the Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team. He deposed about going to the spot i.e. place between jhuggi jailorwala Bagj and Harihar Apartment, Ashok Vihar, along with staff on 17.08.2012 on being requisitioned by the IO. He proved his report as Ex.PW5/A. 20 The PW6, Ct. Somveer, had taken the exhibits of the present case to FSL vide RC Ex.PW6/A and deposed regarding the same while PW3, HC Rishi Raj, is the MHCM. The PW3 produced the original malkhana register No.19 and proved the relevant entries regarding the deposit of exhibits of the case and sending them to FSL SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 17 of 32 18 as Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/C. 21 The PW7, W/HC Sushma Chauhan, was posted as Duty Officer at PS Ashok Vihar on 17.08.2012. She deposed that on that day at about 2:00 PM, a PCR call was received regarding rape of 6 - 7 years old girl child at jailorwala Bagh and she reduced the said information into writing vide DD No.16A and passed the said information to SI Rajender for further action telephonically. She produced the original DD register and proved the DD No.16A as Ex.PW7/A. 22 The PW15, SI Surjeet Singh, deposed that on 17.08.2012, he was working as duty officer at PS Ashok Vihar and on that day, at about 6.45 pm, on receipt of rukka from SI Rajender Singh, he recorded the FIR No. 202/12 u/s 363/376/376(2)(f) IPC of this case. He further deposed that after registration of the case, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to W/SI Usha Rani for further investigation. He has proved the computerized copy of the FIR as Ex. PW15/A and endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex.PW15/B. 23 The PW13, SI Rajender Singh, is the IO of the case and he deposed that on 17.08.2012, on receipt of DD No.16A Ex. PW7/A, through telephone, he reached at Jhuggi No.A107, Jailorwala Bagh, Ashok Vihar, PhaseII, where PW17 S/PSI Suman Bajaj met him and on inquiry from the persons present there, he came to know that the prosecutrix had already been taken to BJRM Hospital by PCR Van along with her father PW10 Ram Samuj and that PW9 Smt. Maharaji, mother of prosecutrix, met him in the house and that he took her along with PW17 PSI Suman Bajaj to BJRM SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 18 of 32 19 Hospital where he obtained the MLC of prosecutrix / victim on which the alleged history of sexual assault was mentioned and that the concerned doctor had handed over the pullandas and sample seal to PW17 PSI Suman Bajaj. He further deposed that after medical examination of the prosecutrix, they all came to PS where he recorded the statement of PW9 Smt. Maharaji Ex.PW9/A on the basis of which he made his endorsement Ex.PW13/A and prepared rukka and produced the same before the Duty Officer with request to entrust the investigation of the case to W/SI Usha Rani as per directions of SHO.
24 During his crossexamination, PW13 deposed that he was present in the area of PS Ashok Vihar when he received DD No.16A on telephone and reached the said house at about 2:30 PM and remained there for about 15 to 20 minutes. He further deposed that they went in a TSR to BJRM Hospital and remained in the hospital till 5:30 PM and reached at the PS, from hospital, at about 6:15 PM and that SHO was not present in the PS at that time, however, Inspector Investigation was present there and that he narrated the entire facts to Inspector Investigation and that he did not make any arrival entry after coming from hospital. He denied the suggestion that he did not carry out investigation, as stated by him in his examination in chief, or that all the writing work was done by him while sitting at PS. 25 The PW16, HC Mahendra Singh, deposed that on 17.08.2012 he had joined investigations of case with W/SI Usha and PW6 Ct. Somveer and had gone to the spot i.e. Kavita Park, Near Jailorwala Bagh, Ashok Vihar, PhaseII, where IO W/SI Usha prepared site plan at the pointing out of the victim child / prosecutrix. He further SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 19 of 32 20 deposed that the crime team also came to the spot and inspected the site and that accused was arrested vide arrest memo as Ex.PW9/B and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW16/A and that thereafter accused was interrogated and during the course of interrogation, accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW9/C. He further deposed that accused also pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo Ex.PW16/B was prepared at his instance and that IO recorded statement of mother of prosecutrix and that accused was taken for medical examination to BJRM Hospital and after medical examination of the accused, samples were handed over by the doctor to IO vide memo Ex.PW16/C and that the samples taken from the prosecutrix were also handed over to the IO by the concerned doctor which were seized vide memo Ex.PW16/D. 26 During his crossexamination, PW16 deposed that he had not gone with the IO from PS as he was Beat Constable in the area where the incident had taken place and was present on duty when called by the IO and that he did not remember the time when he reached the place of occurrence. He further deposed that the crime team reached the spot later. He did not remember the time when crime team reached the spot but stated that the photographer was also part of the crime team. He further deposed that accused Mool Chand was apprehended from Jailorwala Bagh, near Railway Line but he did not remember the time when accused was apprehended. He also stated that the information regarding the arrest of accused was given to his father and that accused was arrested on identification of prosecutrix and her mother and that the statement of mother of prosecutrix was recorded at the spot i.e. the Railway line itself. He then deposed that they had reached hospital after 10:00 PM but he did not SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 20 of 32 21 remember the exact time and further stated that they returned back to PS before 12:00 midnight. He denied the suggestion that accused was called telephonically to PS or that accused was not arrested in the manner stated by him in his examination in chief or that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that he also did not point out the place of incident or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO. 27 The PW17, PSI Suman Bajaj, deposed that on 17.08.2012, inquiry of the present case was entrusted to her vide DD No. 16A regarding rape of a minor girl aged about 67 years at Jailorwala Bagh and on receipt of said DD, she went to the spot where PW13 SI Rajender Singh met her and that on inquiry from public persons and PW9 Smt. Maharaji, mother of the prosecutrix, they came to know that the prosecutrix has been taken by PCR Van to BJRM Hospital and that accordingly, they went to BJRM Hospital where the prosecutrix was got medically examined by the doctor vide her MLC and that after her medical examination, sealed exhibits of the prosecutrix were handed over to her by the doctor with sample seal which were produced by her before the IO SI Usha Rani in the PS, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/D. She further deposed that site plan Ex. PW17/A was prepared by SI Usha Rani and that seizure memo Ex. PW16/C of the exhibits of accused, after his medical examination, was also prepared and that the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW9/C and pointing out memo Ex. PW16/B were also prepared by SI Usha Rani. 28 During her crossexamination by learned defence counsel PW17 deposed that on 17.08.2012 she was on emergency duty from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m and that she received the DD No. 16A at about 2.20 p.m. and immediately thereafter she left the PS SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 21 of 32 22 for the spot by private vehicle i.e. car and that her departure was made in the DD itself by Duty Officer and that she did not recollect the jhuggi number where prosecutrix was residing but they first visited the spot in the Jailorwala bagh near the bushes where the incident of rape occurred and thereafter they went towards the jhuggi where the public persons were present and from there they went to the hospital and that the place of incident was not inspected by her. She further deposed that there was no occasion for her or PW13 SI Rajender Singh, at that time, to record the statement of public persons and PW9 Smt. Maharaji, who had informed them that prosecutrix was taken to BJRM hospital by PCR Van, and that they remained there for about 23 minutes thereafter they left for BJRM Hospital in a government vehicle but she could not tell the name of the driver of the said government vehicle nor she could tell the number of the said vehicle and that they remained at the hospital for a considerable period for the medical examination of the prosecutrix but she could not tell the exact time of her reaching to the PS from hospital but stated that it was after evening. She then deposed that SI Usha Rani was posted at PS Bharat Nagar, but she clarified that SI Usha was looking after the cases of rape in sub division of three police stations which included PS Ashok Vihar and Keshav Puram also and that SI Usha Rani never remained posted with her at PS Ashok Vihar and that one SI of their PS had dropped her in a car at the spot and after dropping her, he had left for his own work of investigation in some other case. She denied the suggestion that she never visited the spot nor had she joined the investigation with the IO she denied that the entire proceedings were conducted while sitting in the PS and that she could not identify the handwriting and signatures of SI Usha Rani.
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 22 of 32
23
29 The PW18, WSI Rajesh Sharma, is one of the IO's of the case and she
deposed that on 23.08.2012 further investigation of the present case was entrusted to her and that during investigation, she recorded the statements of witnesses U/s. 161 Cr. P.C and that also got deposited the exhibits through PW6 Ct. Somvir with FSL Rohini. She further deposed that the proof of age of prosecutrix was obtained by her from school. She proved the certificate issued by principal as Ex. PW8/D; affidavit executed by PW9 Smt. Maharaji Devi (mother of the prosecutrix) as Ex. PW8/B and the copy of admission register of school as Ex. PW8/C. The PW18 further deposed that she also collected the photographs Ex. PW2/A1 to Ex. PW2/A8 from the photographer of crime team and the PCR form Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B and FSL results Ex. PX and filed the same in the court.
30 The PW18 also proved the handwriting and signatures of SI Usha Rani, who was her batchmate, and PW18 had seen her writing and signing in the usual course of the duties and thus proved the application for recording of statement of prosecutrix U/s. 164 Cr. P.C. Ex.PW18/C, which was in handwriting of SI Usha Rani, the proceedings U/s. 164 Cr. P.C. wherein SI Usha Rani had identified the prosecutrix as Ex. PW1/D and the application prepared by SI Usha Rani for providing copy of proceedings U/s. 164 Cr. P.C. as Ex. PW18/E. The PW18 was not crossexamined by learned defence counsel despite opportunity.
31 After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Mool Chand was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein the accused stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case as there was an enmity between him and the family SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 23 of 32 24 of the prosecutrix over filling of the water and to level the score, parents of prosecutrix had lodged a false complaint against him. The accused further stated that his thumb impression were obtained forcibly by the Police on some blank papers and printed proformas and later on, those papers were converted into various memos against him. The accused declined to lead evidence in his defence.
32 Arguments have been addressed by learned defence counsel for the accused as well as learned Additional PP for the State.
33 Learned Additional PP has contended that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has accordingly prayed that accused be convicted u/s. 363/376 (2) (f) IPC. 34 Learned defence counsel for the accused on the other hand has contended that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further contended that statement of victim child cannot be relied upon as there are several contradictions in her testimony before the Court and story of the prosecution and that even otherwise she was tutored to state, whatever she has deposed in the Court, by her parents. It is also contended that there is discrepancy as to who gave information of incident to PW10 Ram Samuj and that place of incident also varies with witnesses and that the name of the said park is nowhere mentioned by the witnesses and that accused had been falsely implicated in the case as there was an enmity between him and the family of the prosecutrix over filling of the water and to level the score, parents of prosecutrix lodged a SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 24 of 32 25 false complaint against him. It is also contended that crime team did not visit at the spot and that statement of photographer was also not recorded by the IO. It is lastly contended that no such offence was ever been committed by the accused and it is prayed that accused be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 35 I have heard the arguments addressed before me and also perused the record carefully.
36 In the present case, accused is alleged to have kidnapped prosecutrix aged about 7 years, from lawful guardianship, and taken her behind bushes in park at jailorwala Bagh where he committed rape upon her. As far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the prosecution has examined PW8 Indu Bala, who produced record of school wherein prosecutrix was admitted in Ist class. The date of birth of prosecutrix as per the said record is '31.08.2005'. The record produced by PW8 was maintained in official books in regular course of official duties and is thus admissible u/s.35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Nothing has been brought on record to create doubt regarding the record produced by PW8 and thus prosecution has succeeded in proving that the date of birth of prosecutrix is 31.08.2005. The date of incident in the present case is 17.08.2012 and prosecutrix was aged about 7 years at the time of incident. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the prosecution was aged about 7 years at the time of incident.
37 The next question which arises for consideration is whether accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix and had committed rape upon her on the date of incident as is SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 25 of 32 26 the case put forth by the prosecution. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined prosecutrix as PW1. The statement of prosecutrix has been reproduced at length hereinabove and in the said statement she has clearly stated as to how she had gone to dig mud near her house when accused came there and took her to bushes, removed her undergarment as well as his undergarment. Though the witness could not express the actual act committed by the accused, she stated that she felt pain on her private parts (Mujhe dukh raha tha). During her cross examination recorded on 01.05.2013, the witness further stated that when accused removed her underwear, she shouted but he shut her mouth and even though she bite him, he did not leave her (Usne kachhi uttari thi, apni kachhi bhi uttari. Me chilayi, mera muh dab liya. Maine kata, tab bhi mera muh nahi chhoda). The statement of prosecutrix is duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record. Although the concerned doctor namely Dr. Niyati, who had examined the prosecutrix, could not be examined as she was on maternity leave. PW12 Dr. Latika, who was deputed in her place, identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Niyati and stated that Dr. Niyati had observed after examining the prosecutrix, that "vulval forchette was congested and minimal bleeding was present ; para urethal area was congested, hymen had a fresh small tear with bleeding." She further deposed that on basis of these findings, Dr. Niyati opined that "the findings were suggestive of sexual abuse with trial of penetration which caused hymenal injury and congestion." Further in the present case, the FSL result that is Ex.PX was admitted by learned counsel for accused. In the said FSL result i.e. the result from DNA Finger Printing Unit, it has been observed that the alleles from the source of the exhibit '2' (blood sample of accused Mool Chand) are accounted in alleles from the source of exhibit '1f1' (Microslide) & '1f2 (Microslide). The Microslides '1f1' & '1f2' were SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 26 of 32 27 prepared from "Step 9 - Vaginal Secretion (V)" taken from the prosecutrix. 38 The MLC of the prosecutrix i.e. Ex.PW4/A as well as FSL result of DNA Finger Printing Unit is Ex.PX were specifically put to accused in his statement u/s.313 CrPC and he responded to them by stating that it was a matter of record. No explanation was given by the accused as to how DNA from his blood samples could be accounted in the slides prepared "Step 9 - Vaginal Secretion of the prosecutrix. 39 It is a well settled law that the conviction on the sole evidence of a child witness is permissible if such witness is found competent to testify by the court, after careful scrutiny of its evidence, In case of Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341, it was held that, " A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his / her demeanor must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored."
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 27 of 32
28
40 In case of Pancchi Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2726, it was further held :
"It is not the law that if a witness is a child his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence if a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them and this a child witness is easy prey to tutoring."
41 The ratio of above cases is that the testimony of child witnesses is attributed the same kind of credibility that it attached to the statement of any other witness if the testimony is consistent. In the present case the prosecutrix has been consistent on the material particulars with regard to the incident when she was raped and there is full corroboration of her testimony by PW14 Shailesh, her brother, who deposed about the manner in which accused came to the spot where he and prosecutrix were digging mud and took away the prosecutrix stating that "Me tujhe badiya mitti dilwa dunga". The PW14 has stated that accused took his sister in lap and went away and thereafter he too rushed to call his mother. It is noteworthy that PW14 himself is a tender age child of about 9 years and nothing could be brought out from his crossexamination to show that his testimony varied with the testimony of prosecutrix on material points. Further the incident in the present case had taken place on 17.08.2012 and from record it is seen that statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC was recorded on 18.08.2012 vide Ex.PW18/D and in the said statement also prosecutrix has clearly mentioned about the manner in which accused picked her up, took her to place with grass in the park, made SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 28 of 32 29 her lie down, took of her undergarment as well as his clothes, lay down on her and committed wrong act with her (mere sath galatkam kiya) and left her. Though the statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 CrPC was not in question answer form and when the incident was narrated by her, during her testimony as PW1, before the Court in question answer form, she clearly elaborated upon the manner in which accused had raped her. As already observed hereinabove the medical and the biological evidence on record fully corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix. Inconsistencies and discrepancies are pointed out by the learned defence counsel regarding the place where mother of prosecutrix was present at the time of incident, the manner in which the father of prosecutrix was informed about the incident and person by whom he was so informed and nonjoining of two bhaiyas / persons, who had apparently rescued the prosecutrix from the clutches of accused do not have any consequences on the merits of the case in the light of clear and cogent testimony of the prosecutrix which is due supported by the other evidence on record.
42 Learned defence counsel for accused has also contended that testimony of prosecutrix / minor child cannot be relied upon as children are prone to tutoring and in the present case also from testimony of prosecutrix it is evident that she was tutored. 43 In this regard it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of UP Vs. Krishan Master, AIR 2010 SC 3071, that : "There is no principle of law that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age would not be able to recapitulate the facts in his memory. A Child is always receptive to abnormal events which SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 29 of 32 30 take place in his life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life. The child may be able to recapitulate carefully and exactly when asked about the same in the future. In case the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, and the same inspire confidence of the Court, his deposition does not require any corroboration whatsoever. The child at a tender age is incapable of having any malice or ill will against any person. Therefore, there must be something on record to satisfy the Court that something had gone wrong between the date of incident and recording evidence of the child witness due to which the witness wanted to implicate the accused falsely in a case of a serious nature."
44 In the present case, not only does the testimony of victim child/PW1 inspires confidence, but even other her testimony is duly corroborated by that of PW14 Shailesh, brother of victim child, and the medical and the biological evidence on record. I find no reason as to why a child of such tender age as the prosecutrix would implicate an innocent person for an offence which was undisputedly committed with her. No plausible justification has come forth from accused, why such a vulnerable child would nurture enmity or grudge or ill will against him. Rather, in the present case, the victim child has explained how accused took her behind the bushes while she was digging mud in the park, shut her mouth with his hand and committed rape upon her. The testimony of prosecutrix clearly bring out the traumatic experience she suffered at the hands of the accused. Even otherwise in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors. AIR SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 30 of 32 31 1996 SC 1393, the Supreme Court held that in cases involving sexual offences, harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. It was held that:
"The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. It must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may took for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations."
45 Lastly, learned counsel for accused has contended that if at all only offence for attempt to rape is made out against the accused in view of the opinion given by the concerned doctor on the MLC of the accused. In this regard it would be relevant to refer to judgment in case of State of UP Vs. Balul Nath, 1995 (1) CC Cases 17 (SC), wherein it has been held that, "To constitute the offence of rape, it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of male organ with emission SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 31 of 32 32 of semen and rupture of hymen . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape even witout causing any injury to genitals or leaving any semenal stains.
46 In the present case from the testimony of prosecutrix and other witnesses examined by the prosecution and the MLC, FSL report and other documents placed on record by it, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused Mool Chand on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I hold accused Mool Chand guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 363/376 (2) (f) IPC and he is convicted accordingly.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 28.06.2013) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 32 of 32
33
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No.14/13)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0303242012
State Vs. Mool Chand
FIR No. : 202/12
U/s : 363/376 (2)(f) IPC
P.S. : Ashok Vihar
State Vs. Mool Chand
s/o Sh. Ram Avadh
29.06.2013
Present : Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict produced from J.C.
Counsel Sh. S.K. Sengar for the convict.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
In the present case, the convict - Mool Chand has been convicted u/s 363/376 (2) (f) IPC.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence put forward by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for for the convict.
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 33 of 32 34
2. It has been submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that in the present case, convict raped a minor girl aged about 67 years and in view of serious nature of offence, the convict does not deserve any leniency and she prays that maximum sentence prescribed by the law may be imposed upon the convict.
3. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the convict submits that the convictMool Chand is aged about 21 years. It is also submitted that convict belongs to a low strata of society and has been in custody for the last about 10 months. It is further submitted that convict is the sole bread earner of his family and has old aged parents and a widow sister to look after. It is further submitted that convict is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other case and he prays that a lenient view may be taken in this case and sentence for the period already undergone by him may be awarded and he be given a chance of rehabilitation by granting him benefit of probation.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Counsel and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
5. In the present case, the convict Mool Chand has been convicted for committing the offence punishable u/s- 363/376 (2) (f) IPC. It is relevant to mention that convict was a neighbour of the victim child and according to the testimony of PW14, Shailesh, convict was not only a regular visitor to the house of SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 34 of 32 35 prosecutrix, but often came there to sit and watch TV. No plausible justification has come forth from convict, why such tenderaged children would nurture enmity or grudge or ill will against him. The instances of minor girls being victim to such nefarious acts and deeds, which transforms their innocent and happy lives into a ditch of hell and miseries are on rise and thus, no leniency is called for in the matter. I hereby award rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years to the convict Mool Chand for having committed the offence u/s.363 IPC. He shall also be liable to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 5,000/, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three month. I further sentenced life imprisonment to the convict Mool Chand for having committed the offence u/s.376 (2)(f) alongwith a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six month for the offence u/s 376 (2) (f) IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be also given to the convict.
Coming now to the aspect of compensation to the victim, who is a minor girl, the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again observed that that subordinate Courts trying the offences of sexual assault have the jurisdiction to award the compensation to the victims being an offence against the basic human right and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a case titled as Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the jurisdiction to pay compensation (interim and final) has to be treated to be a part of the over all jurisdiction of the Courts trying the offences of SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 35 of 32 36 rape, which is an offence against basic human rights as also the Fundamental Rights of Personal Liberty and Life.
Even otherwise, the concept of welfare and well being of children is basic for any civilized society and this has a direct bearing on the state of health and well being of the entire community, its growth and development. It has been time and again emphasized in various legislations, international declarations as well as the judicial pronouncements that the Children are a "supremely important national asset" and the future well being of the nation depends on how its children grow and develop. In this regard reference is made to the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC, 244, that :
"The child is a soul with a being, a nature and capacities of its own, who must be helped to find them, to grow into their maturity, into fullness of physical and vital energy and the utmost breath, depth and height of its emotional intellectual and spiritual being; otherwise there cannot be a healthy growth of the nation. Now obviously children need special protection because of their tender age and physique, mental immaturity and incapacity to look after themselves. That is why there is a growing realization in every part of the globe that children must be brought up in an atmosphere of love and affection and under the tender care and attention of parents so that they may be able SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 36 of 32 37 to attain full emotional, intellectual and spiritual stability and maturity and acquire selfconfidence and selfrespect and a balance view of life with full appreciation and realization of the role which they have to play in the nation building process without which the nation cannot develop and attain real prosperity because a large segment of the society would then be left out of the developmental process. In India this consciousness is reflected in the provisions enacted in the Constitution. Clause (3) of Article 15 enables the State to make special provisions inter alia for children and Article 24 provides that no child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 provide that the State shall direct its policy towards securing inter alia that the tender age of children is not abused, that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age and strength and that children are given facility to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. These constitutional provisions reflect the great anxiety of the constitution makers to protect and SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 37 of 32 38 safeguard the interest and welfare of children in the country. The Government of India has also in pursuance of these constitutional provisions evolved a National Policy for the Welfare of Children. This Policy starts with a goaloriented perambulatory introduction."
Therefore, in order to provide Restorative and Compensatory Justice to the victim i.e prosecutrix, I hereby direct the GNCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary (Home) to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rs. One lac only) to the prosecutrix. The said amount shall be used for her welfare and rehabilitation, under the supervision of Welfare Officer, so nominated by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary (Home), GNCT of Delhi, Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi, Principal Secretary (Social Welfare), GNCT of Delhi and Director, Department of Social Welfare (Women and Child Development), GNCT of Delhi, for information and necessary action under intimation to this Court.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment.
Copies of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to the convict, free of cost.
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 38 of 32
39
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Illa Rawat)
(Court on 29.06.2013) Addl. Session Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 14/13 State Vs. Mool Chand Page Nos. 39 of 32