Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . on 6 August, 2011

                                                     1

                     IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, 
                    ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ­II,  OUTER DISTRICT 
                                      ROHINI COURTS : DELHI 

IN RE :                             Sessions Case No. :  48/09    
                                         ID No. : 02404R0309742006 
                                        FIR No.  :    999/06
                                        P.S.        :    Sultan Puri                  
                                        U/s : 363/366­A/376(2)(g)/506/342/34 IPC 
                                        Date of registration : 20­10­2006 
                                        Reserved for Judgment on: 27­07­2011
                                        Judgment Announced on : 06­08­2011      
     
                 State          

                  Vs.

1.  Urmila W/o Munna Lal  
     R/o  H. No. 11, Harijan Basti,  
     Near Shobha Cinema,  Sultan Puri,       
     Delhi. 
       
2.  Ruksana Begum W/o Samir Khanna 
     R/o House No. T 783, Mangol Puri, 
     Delhi.  

JUDGMENT

1. Briefly stated the present FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint of Kamal Singh, father of the (victim). (The name Contd....

2

of the victim is deliberately not being mentioned as she is victim of sexual offence and she will be referred to as "victim" in the judgment). According to the statement of the complainant his daughter (victim) aged around 14 years on 9­6­2006 left the house at about 8:30 a.m without informing anybody. He tried to search her in his relations but to no avail. He suspected that some lady has kidnapped his daughter.

2. FIR No. 999/06 was registered at PS Sultan Puri and investigation underway. Accused Ruksana was arrested and she got recovered the victim from her possession. On inquiry from the victim she told that she was illegally confined by the accused persons and she was subjected to rape by different persons at different time in the house of accused Ruksana in the presence of accused Urmila. The statement of the victim was also recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. The victim was medically examined at the hospital. Later on the pointing out accused Ruksana accused Urmila was also arrested. After completion of investigation accused were charge sheeted U/s 363/366­A/376(2)

(g)/506/342/34 IPC. FIR reiterates the same facts as of statement of complainant.

3. Ld. MM complied with the provisions of section 207 Contd....

3

Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial, which in turn was assigned to this Court.

4. On 08­10­2007, a charge U/s 366 A/376(2)(g) IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses.

6. PW 1 is Dr. Shankar Gupta who had medically examined victim at the first stage and referred her for gynae opinion. He proved her MLC as Ex. PW 1/A.

7. PW 2 is H.C. Harish Chander he has proved the FIR as Ex. PW 2/A.

8. PW 3 is the victim whose testimony was recorded in camera and would be discussed in the later part of the judgment as she is the most material witness of the case.

9. PW 4 is Dr. Lakhvinder Kaur who has medically examined the accused persons and she proved the MLC of accused Ruksana as Ex. PW 4/A and that of Urmila as Ex. PW 4/B.

10. PW 5 is Dr. Garima who had deposed in place of Dr. Anju who had examined the victim. She has proved the opinion Contd....

4

given by Dr. Anju on the MLC Ex. PW 1/A from point B to B. As per the opinion given by Dr. Anju on local examination no external injury mark were found on the person of the prosecutrix. Hymen was found torn and vagina admitted one finger.

11. PW 6 is constable Ashok Kumar who after receiving the information regarding the apprehension of a lady at B Block near house No. 480 Jalebi Chowk. He recorded this entry vide DD No. 85 B and handed over the same to constable Bhim Sen for further handing over the same to constable Bajurang Lal. He proved the DD No. 85 B as Ex. PW 6/A.

12. PW 7 is H.C. Nirmala. On 26­6­2006 she was called by W/SI Sanjita near house No. T 783 Mangol Puri and got victim medically examined. She was handed over two sealed parcels by the doctor which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW 3/A. She alongwith the IO and the victim went to Mangol Puri at the house of accused Ruksana and at the pointing out of the victim a bag was recovered which contained her cloth. In her presence victim also told the IO that she was having Rs. 3500/­ which were kept in a box and when that box was opened Rs. 3000/­ were recovered from it. In her presence accused Rukasana was arrested vide memo Ex. Pw 3/D and her personal search was Contd....

5

conducted vide memo Ex. PW 3/G. The recovered money was seized vide memo Ex. PW 3/C. After that she alongwith the victim and IO and accused Ruksana went in search of accused Urmila who was arrested at the pointing out of the victim vide memo Ex. PW 3/E and her personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW 3/F. Disclosure statement of accused Urmila was recorded in her presence which is Ex. PW 3/I and bears her signature at point D.

13. This witness was declared hostile by the ld. APP as she resiled from her statement made U/s 161 Cr.P.C.

14. In her cross examination she admitted that site plan was prepared at the instance of the victim she also admitted that the amount of Rs. 3020/­ was recovered from the box which was in the denomination of Rs. 500/­, Rs. 100/­ and Rs. 20/­. She also admitted that Urmila was apprehended near house No. 11 Harijan basti Sultan Puri. She also admitted that victim had also pointed towards the house of accused Urmila. She also identified the case property.

15. PW 8 is Kamal Singh who is the father of the victim. He th deposed that on 27 of a month and year which he does not remember his daughter i.e. the victim left the house and that time Contd....

6

she was 16 years of age. He searched for her but she could not be found so he lodged a complaint Ex. PW 2/A. He deposed that his daughter was recovered from the possession of accused Urmila and correctly identified her in the Court. He further deposed that the factum of recovery of his daughter was told to him by his nephew.

16. This witness was declared hostile and he was cross examined by the Ld. APP and in his cross examination he admitted that in his missing report he has mentioned the age of the victim as 14 years and also admitted that his daughter was missing since 9­6­2006. He also admitted that he has put suspicion on some lady as the person who had kidnapped his daughter. He admitted that victim was got recovered on 28­6­2006, and he alongwith the police officials reached at Jalebi Chowk in search of his daughter Pooja and found that his nephew was catching hold a lady. He denied the suggestion that the said lady had told the police that the victim was in her possession. He had failed to identify accused Ruksana and stated in the cross examination that he could not identify her as he had not gone there. He denied the suggestion that victim was recovered from the house of accused Ruksana, he was confronted with his Contd....

7

statement given to the police.

17. PW 9 is Mukesh. He deposed that he received a telephone call from his Mama Kamal Singh who had told him that some ladies have been caught by the police who had kidnapped the victim. At the call of his mama he went to the police station and found his mama and victim present there. He deposed that he did not know who had kidnapped Pooja and failed to identify the accused persons.

18. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the Ld. APP. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that in search of victim he went to Sultan Puri and came to know that in house No. T­783, Mangol Puri one lady Asha used to indulge in illegal trafficking. He denied that he went in search of victim and he caught a lady near jalebi chowk who disclosed that victim was under her confinement. He denied that he made any telephonic call to the police or that the victim was recovered from accused Ruksana.

19. PW 10 is Sukhbir Singh Gulia. He deposed that accused Urmila used to reside in the house of his nephew namely Rajesh Gulia and she used to stay at home and do house hold work of his nephew as a maid.

Contd....

8

20. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the Ld. APP and in his cross examination he denied that he came to know that accused Urmila used to deal in trafficking of women.

21. PW 11 is Rajesh Gulia. He deposed that accused Urmila was his tenant and used to do household work in his house.

22. PW 12 is Daulat Ram who was working as property dealer and was the owner of house No. T 783 Mangol Puri which was given on rent by him to accused Ruksana. He deposed that he does not know about the occupation of Ruksana.

23. PW 13 is constable Braham Dev. He had deposited the exhibits alongwith FSL form in FSL Rohini.

24. PW 14 is Rashema who deposed that one Sonia was her tenant for about 15 days.

25. PW 15 is ASI Bajrang. He had reached B Block House no. 480 Jalebi Chowk Sultan Puri alongwith constable Bhim Sen and found one Mukesh alongwith a lady. Mukesh told him that he had apprehended a lady on suspicion of having kidnapped the victim. He identified the lady as Ruksana. He informed the duty officer and thereafter WSI Sanjeeta reached the spot and he handed over accused Ruksana to her.

26. PW 16 Sh. Pooran Chand is the Ld. MM who had Contd....

9

recorded the statement of the victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW 3/J and his findings regarding the recording of statement is Ex. PW 16/B.

27. PW 17 is constable Biri Singh who remained associated with the IO in the investigation, arrest of the accused persons and recoveries and has narrated the sequence of investigation done by the IO.

28. PW 18 is ASI Ram Bilas. He had recorded the message in the PCR form and proved the same as mark A. He also deposed that the original record pertaining to PCR form has been destroyed by the orders dated 7­10­2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of the Police.

29. PW 19 is H.C. Gobind Singh. He is the MHC(M) and proved the entries in the register No. 19 as Ex. PW 19/A.

30. PW 20 is Women Inspector Sanjeeta. She is the IO of the case and she unfolded the sequence of investigation done by her. She proved on record the site plan prepared by her as Ex. Pw 20/A, and the primary school certificate collected by her during the investigation as Ex. PW 20/C. She completed the charge sheet and filed the challan before the Court.

31. After the closing of the prosecution evidence statement Contd....

10

of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the same and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. No evidence in defence was led by the accused persons.

32. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ms. Bindia Malhotra, Amicus Curiae for accused Urmila and Sh. Surender Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused Ruksana and have also gone through the records of the Case.

33. It was urged by the Ld. APP for the State that on the basis of the evidence recorded and the material available on record, the accused persons be convicted. On the other hand, it was submitted by the ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused Urmila that the accused has been falsely implicated, the victim has made inconsistent statements and the victim was willingly residing with the accused persons. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld counsel for accused Ruksana that she has also been falsely implicated and there is not an iota of evidence against her that she ever threatened the victim and he also urged that the victim has made inconsistent statement and it has not been proved by the prosecution that the victim was below 16 Contd....

11

years of age. It was vehemently urged by both the defence counsels that a woman cannot rape a woman so no case U/s 376 (2)(g) IPC is made out against the accused persons.

34. The Ld defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments :

(i) Devanand Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), 202 [3] JCC 1663.
(ii) Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1408.
(iii) Sukhbir Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (2) C.C. Cases (HC) 439
(iv) Naushad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 601 (All.)

35. The Ld predecessor of this Court framed the charge against the accused persons U/s 366 A IPC and 376 (2)(g) IPC. The relevant sections under which the charges have been framed reads as follows :­ "366­A. Procuration of minor girl.­Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is Contd....

12

likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

"376 (2) (g): Whoever, commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years."

36. The points for consideration in this case are :

(i) What was the age of the victim on the date of the incident?
(ii) Whether the victim was residing with the accused persons of her own free will?
(iii) Whether the victim was provided for sexual intercourse by the accused persons?
(iv) Whether the accused persons can be convicted U/s 376 (2) (g) IPC and if not under which section they can be Contd....
13

punished?

37. My findings on the above points are as follows :

(i) What was the age of the victim on the date of the incident?

Prosecution has examined PW 8 Kamal Singh, father of the victim who deposed that at the time of the incident the age of his daughter was around 16 years. He was declared hostile by the Ld. APP. In his cross examination by the ld. APP he stated that he had mentioned the age of his victim daughter as 14 years. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ruksana he stated that his rd daughter had gone to school up to 3 standard. He further stated in his cross examination that he was married after about one year of the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi. He further stated that victim was born after about 3 years of his marriage. Now if we go by his statement, the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi took place in the month of October, 1984, so the marriage of PW 8 according to him must have taken place some time in the last quarter 1985 and the victim must have been born some time in the last quarter 1988.

38. The incident took place on 9­6­2006, so by this estimation the victim was less than 18 years of age. The Contd....

14

prosecution has also proved on record a certificate issued by the principal of M.C. Model (Co­ed) School, Rohini Extension, Sector 20, Delhi 110086 and according to this certificate the date of birth recorded in the school is 2­5­1991. It is to be seen here that victim belongs to the lower strata of the society where they don't have any birth record of their child and only goes by their memory or by happening of any memorable events / festivals at the time of the birth or marriage. In the instant case, two date of births are coming on record but if we see the school certificate which is Ex. PW 20/C and if we calculate the date of birth as given by the father of the victim in his cross examination by the Ld. defence counsel then, the victim in both these situation is less than 18 years of age on the date of the incident. In my opinion, keeping in view the background of the victim and her family, no benefit can be given to the accused persons. The prosecution therefore, has been able to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident.

39. (ii) Whether the victim was residing with the accused persons of her own free will?

(iii) Whether the victim was provided for sexual intercourse by the accused persons?

40. I am taking these two points together as they are Contd....

15

interconnected. The material witness as far as the decision on these two points is concerned is PW 3, the victim herself. As far as the identity of these two accused is concerned there is no dispute as they both have been identified by the victim and there is no suggestion to the contrary. According to PW 3 she was promised a job of welcoming in the marriage parties. PW 3 has further deposed that she alongwith one of her friend went to a place in Mangol Puri for welcoming for two days and during that period of two days she stayed at the hosue of Ruksana where accused Urmila also used to come.

41. PW 3 has further deposed that she stayed at the house of accused Ruksana for about a month but went for welcoming job for only two days and during this month Ruksana shifted her house twice. PW 3 further deposed that she was not staying at the house of Ruksana of her own free will. PW 3 has further deposed that one day accused Ruksana asked her to accompany an old man for welcoming of a marriage party in a hotel. The old man took PW 3 to a hotel in Delhi and committed wrong act with her and when she objected the old man said he had given Rs. 3000/­. She further deposed that the old man removed her cloths and committed wrong act with her. She further deposed that she became unconscious Contd....

16

and when she regained consciousness she felt pain in the place meant for urinating. In the evening the old man dropped her at the house of Ruksana.

42. PW 3 has further deposed that she was subjected to wrong act at the house of Ruksana thrice and whenever she objected she was given beatings and at the time of commission of the wrong act accused Urmila used to be present at the house of Ruksana.

43. PW 3 has further went on to depose that the wrong act was committed at the hosue of Ruksana thrice by four persons one of whom was old one and three were young. Those persons had paid money to Urmila and the wrong act was done on different dates by different persons. She has further deposed that during her month long stay in the house of Ruksana she was given beatings by both the accused. This witness has clarified in her testimony that by wrong act she meant "baltakar". She further deposed that she was recovered from the house of accused Ruksana. Thereafter she was taken to SGM Hospital where she was medically examined. This witness has further proved on record the seizure memos, arrest memos and disclosure statements of the accused and has also identified her clothes.

Contd....

17

44. This witness was cross examined by the Ld APP and she admitted that she had left her house with Rs. 3500/­ given by her father for depositing in the committee. She also admitted that after 9­6­2006, she had stayed at the house of accused Urmila for 2 days and thereafter Urmila left her at the house of accused Ruksana. She further admitted it to be as correct that at the instance of accused Urmila and Ruksana she was subjected to the wrong act by 3­4 persons in the house of Ruksana for money consideration.

45. This witness was cross examined on behalf of both the accused. In her cross examination she has categorically stated that accused Ruksana did not allow her to go back to her home and went after locking her house from outside saying that she would return soon. She further stated that she was never taken to market by Ruksana and she never permitted her to go out of the house or to go to the roof of the house as the same was locked from the outside. To s specific question put by the Ld defence counsel she stated that she raised an alarm while locked inside but nobody came for her help.

46. PW 3 has admitted that she had gone to the rented house of Ruksana passing from the gali but denied that she did not raise any alarm while going to the second house of Ruksana from Contd....

18

her first house. The witness has further stated that shen she raised an alarm an old man cam and asked accused Ruksana as to what was the matter who told that she was her sister's daughter and was trying to flee. PW 3 has categorically stated in her cross examination that in the second house of Ruksana many people used to come for doing galat kam with her and she did not go out of the second house of Ruksana. Pw 3 has further stated that whenever she asked Ruksana that she wanted to go home she was not allowed and was beaten by her.

47. PW 3 has further stated that she was shifted to another house by Ruksana and she has not raised any alarm at that time as she was not well. She denied the suggestion that she remained at the house of accused Ruksana of her own free will.

48. In her cross examination on behalf of accused Urmila PW 3 has categorically stated that she was beaten by Urmila as well and compelled to do galat kam. She has categorically stated that she was forced to do galat kam by the accused persons.

49. So from the testimony of PW 3 it has become crystal clear that she was taken by the accused persons on the pretext of getting her job but she was pushed into prostitution by the accused persons against her will. The witness is consistent regarding the Contd....

19

manner in which she was exploited in her examination in chief as well as in her cross examination. She has reaffirmed in her cross examination that she was subjected to wrongful act by different persons at the behest of both the accused persons. It is seen from the testimony of this witness that accused Ruksana was shifting her house from time to time in order to avoid public attention. PW 3 has also explained as to why she did not raise any objection when the accused Ruksana shifted her house. She has categorically stated in her examination that at one time when accused Ruksana was changing her house she explained to an old man as to what was the matter when PW 3 was raising an alarm at that time Ruksana explained to the old man that Pw 3 was her sister's daughter and she was trying to flee and on the second occasion she was not well so she did not raise an alarm.

50. Every person reacts differently in different situation. It is normally seen that when immature and young girls are caught in such a situation they get overawed and sometime reconcile to their fate. From the testimony of PW 3 it is clear that she has been trying to get out of the clutches of the accused persons but could not succeed. It has also categorically come in the testimony of PW 3 in her examination in chief as well in her cross examination that she Contd....

20

was subjected to sexual intercourse by different persons while in the custody of the accused persons.

51. It was urged by the Ld defence counsel that there are discrepancies in the statement of the victim and in support of this contention the Ld defence counsel relied upon Soorajmal Vs. State (supra). I have perused the statement made by the victim U/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW 3/J. In her statement she stated that she was raped by three persons in the house of accused Ruksana and at that time accused Urmila was also present there alongwith three other girls. No doubt the victim has made improvements in her statement recorded in the Court but to my mind these improvements does not change the basic character of her statement and she has conveyed in clear terms what she wanted to convey to the Court. So no benefit of these inconsistencies as pointed out by the counsels can be given to the accused persons.

52. The victim was medically examined by PW 5 Dr. Garima and she has proved the medical record of the victim as Ex. PW 1/A. The victim was referred to her with the alleged history of sexual assault and she found her hymen torn. This also gives corroboration to the testimony of the victim. A feeble attempt was made by the ld defence counsel to say that there was delay in the registration of Contd....

21

the FIR and the benefit should be given to the accused. No doubt there is a delay in the registration of the FIR but it is also settled that delay in every case is not fatal to the prosecution. In the present case when PW 8 father of the victim was cross examined by the lad defence counsel he categorically stated that he was searching for his daughter for 15 days as he has many relatives in Delhi. He further stated in his cross examination that before approaching the police he tried his best to locate the victim from the hosue of relatives and other people. So in my opinion, the explanation appears to be justified and it is not always that one immediately rushes to the police for filing the report. The first and natural move in these type of cases is to search the child or victim at the friends, relatives and other known places. And only when these attempts fail only then the report is lodged with the police. So in my opinion, no prejudice is caused to the accused persons by the delay.

53. It is the contention of the counsels that there are discrepancies with regard to the manner of arrest of the accused persons. No doubt there are discrepancies with regard to the arrest of the accused persons in the statement of the witnesses but these discrepancies in the arrest of the accused persons does not in my opinion shake the otherwise reliable and cogent testimony of the Contd....

22

victim. It has also come on record that the victim was recovered from the house of accused Ruksana, though the counsel for accused Ruksana in the cross examination of PW 3 suggested that she was living in the house of Ruksana voluntarily. So it is not disputed that the victim was not living with Ruksana. What is disputed is that she was living there voluntarily which has categorically been denied by the victim in her examination in chief as well as in her cross examination.

54. So from the above discussions, it is clear that the prosecution has been able to prove that the victim was not residing with the accused persons of her own free will and she was provided for sexual intercourse by the accused persons.

55. (iv) Whether the accused persons can be convicted U/s 376 (2)(G) IPC and if not under which section they can be punished?

Both the accused persons are woman so looking into the biological facts of this case as well as the statutory provisions, it is to be seen whether they can be charged for gang rape. The answer to this is a clear "No" because a woman cannot be charged for gang raping another woman U/s 376 (2)(g) IPC.

56. So in which section the accused are to be punished. To Contd....

23

my mind since a woman cannot be charged for gang raping a woman, but she can definitely be charged for abetment. In the present case it has come in the testimony of the victim that she was raped by many persons in the house of accused Ruksana in the presence of Urmila. So it is clear from the testimony of PW 3 that both the accused persons abetted the offence of gang rape to which the victim was subjected by them. So the accused person can safely be convicted U/s 109 for abetting the commission of gang rape on the victim.

57. In view of the discussions herein above and keeping in view the testimony of the victim, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Both the accused are therefore, held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 366 A IPC and U/s 109 r/w section 376 (2) (g) IPC. Put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 11­08­2011.

(Announced in the open Court on 06­08­2011. ) (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­II OUTER DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Contd....

24

IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ­II, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS : DELHI IN RE : Sessions Case No. : 48/09 FIR No. : 999/06 P.S. : Sultan Puri U/s : 363/366­A/376(2)(g)/506/342/34 IPC State Vs.

1. Urmila W/o Munna Lal R/o H. No. 11, Harijan Basti, Near Shobha Cinema, Sultan Puri, Delhi.

2. Ruksana Begum W/o Samir Khanna R/o House No. T 783, Mangol Puri, Delhi.

ORDER ON SENTENCE

1. I have heard Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. APP for the state, Sh Surinder Yadav, Ld. counsel for convict Ruksana and Ms. Bindiya Malhotra, Ld. Amicus curiae for convict Urmila on the point of sentence.

2. It is urged by the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the convict Urmila that she is aged about 35 years and has a family to support and is not Contd....

25

a previous convict. She prayed for leniency. It is urged by the Ld. Counsel for accused Ruksana that she is aged about 40 years and she is living separately from her husband for the last about 10 years in a rented premises. She has three children out of which one is handicap and she is the only earning member in the family and was working as a maid to maintain her family. He further stated that she is not a previous convict. He also prayed for leniency.

3. On the other hand, it is urged by the Ld. APP that the convicts have ruined the life of an innocent girl and they are not entitled to any mercy and maximum punishment be awarded to them.

4. Both the convicts have been convicted by me U/s 366 A IPC and U/s 109 r/w section 376 (2) (g) IPC vide my judgment dated 06­08­2011.

5. The convicts have ruined the life of the victim by forcing her for sexual intercourse so I sentence both the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/­ each and in default of payment of fine both the convicts shall Contd....

26

undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each U/s 366 A IPC. I further sentence both the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/­ each and in default of payment of fine both the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each U/s 109 R/w Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. Ordered accordingly.

6. All the sentences to run concurrently. The benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convict. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.

(Announced in the open Court on 20­08­2011) RAJNISH BHATNAGAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ­ II Outer District, Rohini Courts Delhi 20­08­2011 (Copy attached).

Contd....

                                              27

Sessions Case No. :  48/09    
FIR No.  :    999/06
P.S.        :    Sultan Puri

U/s : 363/366­A/376(2)(g)/506/342/34 IPC 20­08­2011 Present : Sh. Shiv Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.

Both the convicts produced from J.C. Sh. Surender Yadav, Ld. Counsel for convict Ruksana Ms. Bindiya Malhotra, Ld. Amicus Curiae for convict Urmila Vide separate order on sentence dictated and announced in the open Court today, both the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/­ each and in default of payment of fine both the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each U/s 366 A IPC. Both the convicts are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/­ each and in default of payment of fine both the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each U/s 109 R/w Section 376 (2) (g) IPC.

All the sentences to run concurrently. The benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convicts. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convicts free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ­ II Outer District, Rohini Courts Delhi 20­08­2011 Contd....

28

Contd....

29

Contd....

30

Contd....