Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Narender on 25 May, 2015
1
FIR No. 21/10
PS - Narela
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT : NORTHWEST DISTRICT : ROHINI : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. : 48/13
Unique ID No. : 02404R0301402010
State Vs. 1. Narender
S/o Shri Rohtash
R/o Gali No. 14, Gautam Colony,
Narela, Delhi.
2. Tek Ram @ Tinku @ Aman
S/o Shri Hari Om
R/o D843, Gali No. 15,
Gautam Colony, Narela,
Delhi.
3. Vikram @ Aman
S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar
R/o House No. 73,
Panna Udyan, Narela, Delhi.
FIR No. : 21/10
Police Station : Narela
Under Sections : 376(2)(g)/363/366 IPC
1 of 9
2
FIR No. 21/10
PS - Narela
ORDER ON SENTENCE :
1.Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 22/05/2015 accused Vikram @ Aman, Tek Ram @ Tinku @ Aman and Narender have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 363/34 IPC, u/s 366/34 IPC and u/s 376(2)(g) IPC.
2. Ms. Surinder Kaur, Learned Counsel for the convict Vikram @ Aman submitted that convict Vikram @ Aman is 22 years of age. He was working as a Driver and is 8th Class pass. She further submitted that he is married and had married the widow, a household lady, having a daughter, aged about five years, of the son of his maternal uncle and he is also having a son aged about 10 months and is the sole bread earner in the family. Learned Counsel further submitted that he is having the aged parents to look after and his father is jobless and his mother is a household lady. Learned Counsel further submitted that he is having one younger brother who is a Driver and was also the National Boxing Champion. She further submitted that he is having no sister. She further submitted that he is running in Judicial Custody (JC) and had also remained for about three weeks in JC and is not involved in 2 of 9 3 FIR No. 21/10 PS - Narela any other case and is having clean antecedents and is not a previous convict and his conduct during the trial was very cooperative and he is the victim of the circumstances and prayed for leniency.
3. Shri Azad Dahiya, Learned Counsel for the convict Tek Ram @ Tinku @ Aman submitted that convict Tek Ram @ Tinku @ Aman is 24 years of age. He is 12th Class pass and was running a Mobile Repairing Shop. He further submitted that he is newly married and his wife is having five months pregnancy and is the sole bread earner in the family. He further submitted that his father is a Peon in the Oriental Bank of Commerce and his mother is a housewife. He further submitted that he is having one unmarried brother and is having four sisters who have since been married off. He further submitted that he is running in Judicial Custody (JC) and has also remained for about a week in JC and is not involved in any other case and is having clean antecedents and is not a previous convict and his conduct during the trial was very cooperative and he is the victim of the circumstances and prayed for leniency.
4. Shri S. K. Malik, Learned Counsel for the convict Narender 3 of 9 4 FIR No. 21/10 PS - Narela submitted that convict Narender is 30 years of age. He is 12th Class pass and was working as a Conductor on adhoc basis in DTC. He further submitted that he is married and is having one son aged about 1½ years and his wife is expecting the second child. He further submitted that his wife is illiterate and is a household lady. He further submitted that he is having the aged parents to look after. He further submitted that he is having one brother who lives separately. He further submitted that he is having no sister. He further submitted that he is running in Judicial Custody (JC) and has also remained for about six weeks in JC and is not involved in any other case and is having clean antecedents and is not a previous convict and his conduct during the trial was very cooperative and he is the victim of the circumstances and prayed for leniency.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Nimmi Sisodia, Learned Addl. PP for State submitted that seeing the gravity of the offences, the convicts be dealt with strictly and severest punishment be given to deter them from committing the same offences in future and no leniency be shown to them.
6. I have heard the Learned Addl. PP for the State and the Learned 4 of 9 5 FIR No. 21/10 PS - Narela Counsel for the convicts Tek Ram @ Tinku @ Aman, Vikram @ Aman and Narender on the quantum of sentence at length. That on 15/01/2010, at about 1:30 p.m., at the gate of Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya No. 2, Narela, Delhi convict Vikram @ Aman in furtherance of common intention with convict Tek Ram @ Tinku @ Aman and convict Narender, kidnapped PW16 - prosecutrix aged around 14 years (to be exact 14 years 01 month and 03 days) by catching hold of her hand and by forcibly making her to sit on the motorcycle bearing no. DL7SH5088 (Ex. P1), from the lawful guardianship without the consent of her parents with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and in furtherance of their common intention took her to DDA Flat No. 427, third floor, Sector B4, Pocket - III, Janta Flats, Narela, Delhi and locked her there and thereafter, convict Tek Ram @ Tinku @ Aman and convict Vikram @ Aman in furtherance of their common intention came inside the room and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will and convict Narender acting in furtherance of their common intention remained outside the room.
5 of 9 6 FIR No. 21/10 PS - Narela
7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahdev Vs. Jaibar @ Jai Dev & Ors. 2009 V AD (S.C.) 515 that : "After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task".
8. It has been held in 'State of Karnataka Vs. Murlidhar', 2009 IV AD (S.C.) 1 that : "The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal".
9. In 'Mulla & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 6 of 9 7 FIR No. 21/10 PS - Narela 508, after considering various earlier decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "It is settled legal position that the punishment must fit the crime. It is the duty of the Court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. As a measure of social necessity and also as a means of deterring other potential offenders, the sentence should be appropriate be fitting the crime".
10. In 'Pushpanjali Sahu Vs. State of Orissa', (2012) 9 SCC 705 in para 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "Sexual violence is not only an unlawful invasion of the right of privacy and sanctity of a woman but also a serious blow to her honour. It leaves a traumatic and humiliating impression on her conscienceoffending her selfesteem and dignity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, but a crime against the entire society. It indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour reputation and not the least her chastity. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely the right of life contained in Article 21 of 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" (Para 12).
11. In Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey and another 7 of 9 8 FIR No. 21/10 PS - Narela (1992) 3 SCC 204, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows : "...though all sexual assaults on female children are not reported and do not come to light yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. This is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer resistance and becomes easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls. Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilized society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms."
12. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the submissions made on behalf of the convicts and after delicately balancing and giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which the offences had been committed, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice can be met by sentencing convicts Vikram @ Aman, Tek Ram @ Tinku @ Aman and Narender to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each u/s 363/34 IPC. They are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous 8 of 9 9 FIR No. 21/10 PS - Narela Imprisonment for a period of one year each u/s 366/34 IPC. They are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ each in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each u/s 376(2)(g) IPC. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the convicts Vikram @ Aman, Tek Ram @ Tinku @ Aman and Narender during the inquiry/investigation/trial of this case shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.
A copy of judgment as well as that of order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs.
Announced in the open Court (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) on 25th Day of May, 2015 Additional Sessions Judge Special Fast Track Court (N/W District), Rohini, Delhi 9 of 9