Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunder Singh on 29 May, 2012
1 FIR No. 187/2009
PS Vijay Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SH MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV (OUTER DISTRICT) :
ROHINI : DELHI
Sessions Case No. : 224/2009
Unique ID No. : 02404R0219622009
State Vs. Sunder Singh
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal
R/o P1/3 Budh ViharI, Delhi.
FIR No. : 187/2009
Police Station : Vijay Vihar
Under Sections : U/S 342/376/511 IPC
Date of committal to session court : 03.09.2009
Date on which orders were reserved: 23.05.2012
Date of which judgment announced: 28.05.2012
1 of 48
2 FIR No. 187/2009
PS Vijay Vihar
JUDGMENT:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C is as under: On 15.06.2009 on receipt of DD No. 56B Ex. PW4/B, ASI Surjeet Singh (PW12) went to H.No. 01/2, Budh Vihar I, Delhi, where prosecutrix (named withheld being a case u/s 376 IPC) alongwith her mother Smt. Suman met. SI Ravinder Kumar (PW12) also reached there, who were interrogated and the prosecutrix under the supervision of her mother was taken to Ambedkar hospital where her (prosecutrix) medical examination was got conducted but on that day the prosecutrix refused to give her statement due to shyness. On 16.06.2009 the prosecutrix got recorded her statement in front of her mother and father against one Sunder Singh S/o Manohar Lal, R/o P1/3, Budh ViharI, in which she disclosed that on 15.06.2009 at about 1.00 PM when she was going to the house of her maternal grand mother (Nani) from her house, on the way when she was passing in front of the house of accused Sunder, accused Sunder, aged about 45 years, gaged her mouth and dragged her in his house and shut the house from inside and removed her clothes and tagged her mouth with dupatta.
2 of 48 3 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar Her mother had gone to the doctor for taking medicines and when she started searching her, accused Sunder left her (prosecutrix) in the room and himself came out but even then he did not disclose that the prosecutrix was with him. He kept the prosecutrix in that room for 34 hours and tried to rape her. When the neighbours gathered in the gali then only accused Sunder released her (prosecutrix) with a threatening and threatened her to kill, if she disclosed anything about the incident to anybody. From the statement of the prosecutrix and on the inspection of her MLC offences u/s 342/376/511 IPC appeared to have been committed; rukka was prepared by SI Ravinder Kumar and he got the case registered and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation site plan was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded; accused Sunder Singh was arrested and he was got medically examined. The disclosure statement of accused Sunder Singh was recorded. The exhibits handed over by the doctor after the medical examination of the prosecutrix and accused Sunder Singh were taken into police possession and were deposited in malkhana. The sealed pullandas on 1.7.09 were deposited in FSL Rohini vide RC No. 36/21/09 and FSL results were obtained and placed on the record.
3 of 48 4 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar Upon completion of the necessary further investigation challan was prepared for the offences u/s 342/376/511 IPC against accused Sunder Singh and was sent to the Court for trial.
2. Since the offence u/s 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, after compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the Court of Session u/s 209 Cr.P.C.
3. Upon committal of the case to the court of Session, after hearing of charge prima facie a case u/s 363/342/376/511/506 Part II IPC was made out against the accused. Charge was framed accordingly on 12.11.2009 which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However on 29.3.2010, the charge was amended and fresh charge was served upon accused Sunder Singh u/s 363/342/376/506 Part II IPC, by the Ld. Predecessor Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case prosecution has produced and examined thirteen witnesses. PW1 Dr. Rajmohan Trivedi, CMO, Selection Grade, BSA Hospital, Delhi, PW2 Prosecutrix, PW3 Dr. Aparna, PW4 Dr. Vijay 4 of 48 5 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar Shankar, Specialist, Forensic Medicine, BSA Hospital, Delhi, PW5 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, CMO, BSA Hosital, Rohini, PW6 HC Rajesh, PW7 Smt. Suman, PW8 HC Sheikh Yakhub, PW9 Ct. Ram Avtar, PW10 Ms. Shashi Bala, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL Rohini, Delhi, PW11 Ct. Kiran Pal, PW12 ASI Surjeet Singh and PW13 SI Ravinder Kumar.
5. In brief the witnessography of the prosecution witnesses is as under: PW1 Dr. Rajmohan Trivedi, who deposed that on 15.06.2009 he examined prosecutrix vide MLC Ex. PW1/A, after medical examination she was referred to S.R. Gynae for Gynaecological examination.
PW2 is the prosecutrix who deposed regarding the incident and proved her statement Ext. PW2/A and she further deposed that she was medically examined on 15.06.09 itself and she had consented for her gynaecological examination and her such consent is signed by her at Point 'B' on the MLC Ext. PW1/A. She further deposed that during medical examination her panty was retained by the doctor and proved the panty Ext. P1.
5 of 48 6 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar PW3 Dr. Aparana, who deposed that on 15.06.2009 she medically examined (Gynaecologically) prosecutrix. She proved her notings on MLC Ext. PW1/A encircled at Point B bearing her signatures at Point C. She also sealed and handed over the undergarments, pubic hair, nail clipping, vaginal swab, vaginal smear, cervical swab and cervical smear to the accompanying Constable.
PW4 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, who deposed that on 17.06.2009 he examined accused Sunder Singh and suggested that Sunder Singh was capable for performing sex and proved his MLC Ex. PW4/A signed by him at PointA. PW5 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, who deposed that on 17.06.2009 she medically examined Sunder Singh with alleged history of committing sexual assault and referred him to Sr. Resident (Surgery) as well as Forensic Medicine Expert for expert opinion. She proved the MLC Ext. PW4/A bearing her signatures at PointA. 6 of 48 7 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar PW6 HC Rajesh, who is the MHC(M) who deposed regarding the depositing of the samples with him in the malkhana and of sending the same to the FSL vide RC No. 36/21/09 and proved the relevant entries of the Register No. 19 at Sl. No. 214 & 216 collectively Ext. PW6/A. He also proved the copy of RC No. 36/21/09 Ext. PW6/B and the copy of the acknowledgment from FSL Rohini Ext. PW6/C. PW7 Smt. Suman, who is the mother of the prosecutrix to whom the prosecutrix had disclosed the facts relating to the crime shortly after the incident. She proved the complaint dated 07.05.2011 Ext. PW7/A made to the police regarding the assault made to her husband by accused and his family and copy of his medical slip Ext. PW7/B and the copy of the statement of her husband recorded by the police Ext. PW7/C. PW8 HC Sheikh Yakhub, who is the Duty Officer, who proved the copy of the FIR as Ext. PW8/1 and his endorsement on the rukka at PointA. He also proved the copy of DD No. 56 B dated 15.06.2009 Ext. PW8/B (also Ext. PW4/B).
7 of 48 8 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar PW9 Ct. Ram Avtar who deposed that on 01.07.2009 he took the exhibits from the MHC(M) and deposited the same with the FSL.
PW10 Ms. Shashi Bala, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL Rohini, Delhi who deposed that she examined the exhibits and proved the detailed biological and serological reports Ext. PW10/A & Ext. PW10/B respectively signed by her at PointsA. PW11 Ct. Kiran Pal who deposed that on 17.06.2009 he took the accused Sunder Singh to BSA hospital and got him medically examined. After medical examination the exhibits were handed over to him by the doctor and he handed over the same to the IO SI Ravinder Kumar which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW11/A signed by him at Point A. PW12 ASI Surjeet Singh who deposed that on 16.06.2009 (be read as 15.06.2009) he received the wireless message from PCR regarding rape recorded vide DD No. 56B dated 15.06.2009 at 8.15 PM Ext. PW4/B (also Ext. PW8/B). He alongwith IO got medically examined the prosecutrix. He further deposed that after medical examination of the prosecutrix the exhibits were handed over to him by the doctor and he 8 of 48 9 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar handed over the same to the IO SI Ravinder Kumar which were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW12/A signed by him at PointA. He further deposed that he kept the DD No. 56B dated 15.06.2009 Ext. PW4/B pending. He also proved the copy of the arrival entry at the police station made vide DD No. 9B dated 16.06.2009 Ext. PW12/B. PW13 SI Ravinder Kumar is the IO of the case, who deposed on the investigational aspects and besides proving the other memos also proved the statement of prosecutrix Ext. PW2/A his endorsement Ext. PW13/A on it, seizure memo of sealed pullanda and a sample seal sealed with the seal of SD which was given by the doctor of BSA hospital Ext. 12/A, arrest memo of accused Sunder Singh Ext. PW13/B, personal search memo of accused Sunder Ext. PW13/C, his disclosure statement Ext. PW13/D, seizure memo of sealed packet and sample seal given by the doctor of BSA Hospital Ext. PW11/A, FSL reports Ext. PW10/A & Ext. PW10/B. He also proved the date of birth certificate of prosecutrix Ext. PW13/E. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses shall be dealt with in detail during the course of appreciation of the evidence.
9 of 48 10 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar
6. It is to be mentioned that as a matter of prudence, in order to avoid any little alteration in the spirit and essence of the depositions of the material witnesses, during the process of appreciation of evidence at some places their part of depositions have been reproduced, in the interest of justice.
7. Statement of accused Sunder Singh was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. He opted to lead defence evidence and examined two witnesses in his defence DW1 Smt. Vidya Wati W/o Sh. Manohar Lal and DW2 Sh. Mahavir Prasad S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal.
DW1 Smt. Vidya Wati, who is the mother of the accused Sunder Singh has deposed that on 04.05.2009 Darshan Singh and his wife, (the parents of the prosecutrix) came to her house and demanded money as a loan for a month. His son initially was not ready to give the loan but on her request he had given a loan of Rs. 10,000/ to Darshan Singh. After one month when her son Sunder Singh demanded the money from Darshan Singh and went to his house he showed his inability and also abused him. Darshan Singh used to take water from their house but they stopped his water supply.
10 of 48 11 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar She further deposed that on 15.06.2009 in the morning hours her son Sunder Singh again demanded money from Darshan Singh but Darshan Singh stated that he will give such money to him that his children will come on the road and also stated that he will get him implicated in a such a case that he will not even get bail, and further stated that he will not give money but he will take money from him.
DW2 Sh. Mahavir Prasad is the neighbour of the accused Sunder Singh, who has deposed that "On the day when the incident in question took place, on that day we were playing cards in the gali and at about 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. Sunder came there and thereafter, the father of the prosecutrix came who called Sunder and took him away from there. Thereafter, in the evening we came to know that police had taken away Sunder."
8. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. There is delay in registration of FIR. As per record the alleged incident is of dated 15.06.2009, prosecutrix was medically examined on 15.06.2009, her statement was recorded on 16.06.2009 and FIR was lodged on 17.06.2009. He further submitted that 11 of 48 12 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar the prosecutrix for the first time in the court deposed that she was raped but never stated so in the FIR or in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C was not got recorded and this is the lacuna in the investigation. He further submitted that as per PW2 prosecutrix when she got free then the wife of Birpal neighbour of accused seen her but she was not examined by the police. No her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C recorded. No public witnesses have been joined in the investigation or examined by the police. He further submitted that the case of the prosecutrix is not supported by the FSL report. There are contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The oral evidence is not supported by the medical evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and prayed that he be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
9. While the Ld. Addl. PP for the state, on the other hand, submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are cogent and consistent and the delay, if any in the registration of the FIR has been explained by the witnesses and further submitted that the contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out are minor and not the material one's and do not effect the credibility of the witnesses and the prosecution has proved its case beyond 12 of 48 13 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar reasonable doubt.
10. I have heard Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. B.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully perused the entire record.
11. The charge against the accused is that on 15.06.2009 at about 1.00 PM, he kidnapped and wrongfully confined the prosecutrix S/o Sh. Darshan Singh (a minor girl aged about 14 years) for three or four hours when she was passing in front of his house P1/3 Budh Vihar out of lawful guardianship of her father Sh. Darshan Singh without his consent, raped her and threatened her to kill in case she disclosed his said activities to any person.
AGE OF PROSECUTRIX:
12. PW7 Smt. Suman, who is the mother of the prosecutrix in her examination in chief has deposed that prosecutrix is her daughter who was around 14 years of age at the time of incident. At that time she was studying in school situated at Avantika in 7th Class. Her daughter was born in the year 13 of 48 14 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar 1994 and she has also brought the janampatri of her daughter and as per janampatri her date of birth is 04.11.1994.
During her crossexamination PW7 Smt. Suman has deposed that she has four issues. Her eldest issue was the son named Ravi and born in the year 1992. Prosecutrix is younger than Ravi and she was born in the year 1994. At the relevant time all her children were studying at school. Her children Ravi, prosecutrix and Geeta used to study at Avantika School, Sector1 but she does not remember the name of the school which was a government school.
In spite of incisive crossexamination of PW7 Smt. Suman nothing material has been brought out on the record so as to impeach her creditworthiness. Not even a single suggestion was made to PW7 Smt. Suman during her crossexamination that the date of birth of prosecutrix was not 04.11.1994.
During the crossexamination of PW2 prosecutrix a suggestion was made to her that at present her age is 20 years which was negated by her.
14 of 48 15 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar PW13 SI Ravinder Kumar who is the Investigating Officer (IO) in his examination in chief stated that he collected the date of birth certificate Ext. PW13/E from Govt. Girls Sec. School Avantika, Rohini, showing the date of birth of prosecutrix as 04.11.1994 as directed by the court during trial.
There is nothing in his crossexamination so as to impeach his creditworthiness.
PW13 SI Ravinder Kumar was suggested during his cross examination that certificate Ext. PW13/E is false and fabricated which was negated by him.
The date of alleged incident is 15.06.2009 and as per school certificate Ext. PW13/E the date of birth of PW1 prosecutrix is 04.11.1994. On simple arithmetical calculation the age of prosecutrix comes to 14 years, 7 months and 11 days as on the date of incident.
In view of above it stands established on the record that prosecutrix was 14 years, 7 months and 11 days of age on the date of 15 of 48 16 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar incident.
VIRILITY OF ACCUSED SUNDER SINGH:
13. PW5 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, CMO, BSA Hospital, Rohini has deposed that on 17.06.2009 she medically examined Sunder Singh vide MLC Ext. PW4/A and referred him to Senior Resident (Surgery) as well as for Forensic Expert for expert opinion.
PW4 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, Forensic, BSA Hospital, Delhi has deposed that on 17.06.2009 he had examined Sunder Singh and was of the view that there was nothing to suggest that the said Sunder Singh was incapable of performing sexual intercourse and proved his endorsement in this regard encircled at PointA on MLC Ext. PW4/A. Both PW4 Dr. Vijay Dhankar and PW5 Dr. Deepti Bhalla were not crossexamined despite grant of opportunity.
In view of above it stands established on the record that accused Sunder Singh was capable of performing sexual intercourse.
16 of 48 17 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
14. PW1 Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi has deposed that on 15.06.2009 prosecutrix was medically examined by him with the history of sexual abuse as told by the patient/prosecutrix and she was referred to S.R. Gynae for gynaecological examination and proved his notings at PointA on the MLC Ext. PW1/A. PW3 Dr. Arpana, Senior Resident, Gynae & Obs. Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi has deposed that on 15.06.2009 she medically examined (gynaecologically) the prosecutrix and proved her notings encircled at Point B and signed by her at PointC on the Ext. PW1/A. She further deposed that the undergarments, pubic hair, nail clippings, vaginal swab, vaginal smear, cervical swab and cervical smear were sealed and handed over to the accompanying constable.
The perusal of noting encircled at PointB on Ext. PW1/A of PW3 Dr. Arpana interalia shows that as per abdominal (P/A) examination, no sign of external injury. Local examination of external genitalia ..no sign 17 of 48 18 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar of any external injury (no abrasion/bruise), hymen rupture, admitting two fingers easily.
BIOLOGICAL AND SEROLOGICAL EVIDENCE
15. As per FSL report Ext. PW10/A, the description of articles contained in parcel and result of analysis reads as under: DESCTRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL Parcel '1' : One sealed cardboard box sealed with the seal of "SD"
containing exhibits '1A', '1B', '1C', '1D', '1E', '1F' & '1G' described as 'exhibits of prosecutrix Arti".
Exhibit '1A' : One underwear having stiffy stains. Exhibit '1B' : Few strands of black hair kept in an injection vial. Exhibit '1C' : Small nail clipping kept in an injection vial. Exhibit '1D' : Cotton wool swab on a plastic stick alongwith fungal growth kept in a test tube.
Exhibit '1E' : One microslide having whitish smear. Exhibit '1F' : Cotton well swab on a plastic stick kept in a test tube. Exhibit '1G' : One microslide having whitish smear.
18 of 48 19 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar Parcel '2' : One sealed cardboard box sealed with the seal of "SD"
containing exhibits '2A', '2B', '2C1', '2C2', '2D', '2E' & '2F', described as exhibits of accused.
Exhibit '2A' : Damp foul smelling cotton wool swab kept in a test tube. Exhibit '2B' : Cotton wool swab on a plastic stick kept in a test tube. Exhibit '2C1' : Two microslides.
& '2C2' Exhibit '2D' : Few strands of very small black hair kept in a test tube. Exhibit '2E' : Few strands of small black hair kept in a test tube. Exhibit '2F' : One underwear.
RESULT OF ANALYSIS
1. Human semen was detected on exhibit '2F'.
2. Blood was detected on exhibits '1A' & '2A'.
3. Semen couldn't be detected on exhibits '1A', '1B', '1C', '1D', '1E', '1F', '1G', '2B', '2C1', '2C2', '2D' and '2E'.
4. XX XX XX As per FSL report Ext. PW10/B the result of serological analysis reads as: Exhibits Species of ABO Origin Grouping/Remarks 19 of 48 20 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar Blood Stains: Human Inconclusive result '1A' Underwear '2A' Blood stained cotton No reaction Semen Stains: '2F' Underwear No reaction On careful perusal and analysis of the biological and serological evidence on record as reproduced and discussed hereinabove, it clearly indicates absence of human semen on Ext. 1A (underwear), 1B, 1C, 1D, 1D, 1F, 1G (of the prosecutrix), 2B, 2C1, 2C2, 2D & 2E (of the accused).
Human semen was detected on Ext. 2F (on the underwear of the accused), blood was detected on Ext. 1A (underwear of the prosecutrix) and Ext.2A, (Blood stained cotton of the accused) but as per serological analysis vide report Ext. PW10/B though in Ext.1/A blood was found to be of human origin but blood grouping remained inconclusive. Ext.2A gave "no reaction"
Ext.2F gave "no reaction".
On a conjoint reading of the medical evidence, the notings encircled at PointB of PW3 Dr. Arpana given on MLC of prosecutrix Ext.
20 of 48 21 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar PW1/A together with MLC of Sunder Singh Ext. PW4/A, in the light of biological and serological evidence detailed herein above, it clearly rules out any recent sexual intercourse activity.
Accordingly, it stands established on the record that no recent sexual intercourse activity has taken place in the instant case.
16. Now let the testimonies of PW2 and PW7 Smt. Suman, mother of the prosecutrix be perused and analysed.
PW2 prosecutrix in her examinationinchief has deposed that on 15.06.2009 at about 1.00 PM she was going to the house of her maternal grandmother (nani) from her house. When on the way, she was passing from in front of the house of accused Sunder, present in the court today (correctly identified), he gaged his mouth and dragged her inside his house. He closed his main gate and thereafter, took her in a room situated at First Floor. He also closed the door of the said room situated at First Floor and teased (chedkhani) her for about two hours and thereafter, he removed her clothes and tied her mouth with the help of chunni (dupatta), he removed his cloths also and committed balatkar (raped with her), by balatkar she means to say that accused had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She 21 of 48 22 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar has further deposed that she could not raise any alarm or make any noise as the accused had tied her hands as well as her mouth. He had also threatened her that in case she would make any effort to raise a noise, then he would kill her father and brothers on which she got frightened. She has further deposed that on the same day at about 5.00/6.00 PM the accused freed her after extending threats to her that in case she disclosed this incident to anyone, he would kill her father and brothers. He also threatened to kill her, if she revealed anything to anybody. She has further deposed when she reached home, she disclosed the entire incident to her mother.
During her crossexamination PW2 prosecutrix negated all the suggestions put to him regarding that accused did not commit the alleged offence on her person or that at the relevant time he was playing cards in the gali or that at the relevant time mother, wife of accused were present in the house or that a quarrel had ensued between her family and the accused and accused stopped to give water to them or that they used to take water from the house of accused or that she is deposing falsely against the accused at the instance of her parents and police officials or that accused did not commit the said offence on her person or that she falsely implicated him. She has further deposed in her crossexamination that the house of her nani is in 22 of 48 23 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar another gali and it would take about five minutes from their house to go there on foot and has also deposed that they have no enmity with any neighbours.
It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant part of crossexamination of PW2 which reads as under: " It is incorrect to suggest that accused did not commit the alleged offence on my person. It is also wrong to suggest that at the relevant time, he was playing cards in the gali. It is wrong to suggest that at the relevant time, mother, wife of the accused were present in the house. It is incorrect to suggest that a quarrel had ensued between my family and the accused and accused stopped us to give water. It is wrong to suggest that we use to take water from the house of accused. House of my naani is in other gali and it would take about 5 minutes from our house to go there on foot. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely against the accused at the instance of my parents and police officials. It is incorrect to suggest that accused did not commit alleged offence on my person or that I falsely implicate him. We have no enmity with any neighbours."
17. PW7 Smt. Suman, mother of the prosecutrix, in her examination inchief has deposed that her daughter the prosecutrix disclosed that after her (PW7) leaving the house, the accused Sunder had come who had taken her 23 of 48 24 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar to the roof of his house in the room and also told that he confined her there and raped her as well. She also told her (PW7) that even earlier the accused forcibly raped her twice. He also continued threatening her daughter that he will take her outside or kill her parents.
During her crossexamination PW7 Smt. Suman negated all the suggestions made to her that Sunder is married and he was living with his wife, mother, children and sister at that time or that accused was falsely implicated because of inimical term with the accused family or that her husband has taken some money from the accused and when he asked it back her husband refused and thus falsely implicated in this case or that nothing has been done with her daughter by the accused and accused had not threatened her daughter at all or that no kidnapping incident of prosecutrix (name withheld) has occurred or that accused has been falsely implicated in this case or that she is deposing falsely.
It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant part of crossexamination of PW7 Smt. Suman which reads as under: 24 of 48 25 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar "It is wrong to suggest that Sunder is married and he was leaving (living) with his wife, mother, children and sister at that time. It is wrong to suggest that accused was falsely implicated because of inimical term with the accused family. It is wrong to suggest that my husband (had) taken some money from the accused and when he asked it back, my husband refused and thus falsely implicated in this case. It is wrong to suggest that nothing has been done with my daughter by the accused and accused has not threated (threatened) my daughter at all. It is wrong to suggest that no kidnapping incidence of prosecutrix (name withheld) has occurred and accused was falsely implicated in this case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
18. While analysing the testimonies of PW2 prosecutrix and her mother PW7 Smt. Suman, as discussed hereinabove. Inspite of incisive crossexamination nothing material has come out in the statement of PW2 prosecutrix and PW7 Smt. Suman which may throw even a slightest doubt on the prosecution version of the incident. Though the suggestions have been put by the defence to PW2 prosecutrix and PW7 Smt. Suman regarding the false implication of the accused Sunder Singh but the same are vague, contradictory and unspecified being in the nature of alternative.' It was suggested to PW2 Prosecutrix that she was deposing falsely against the accused at the instance of her parents and police officials which she negated. She specifically deposed that they have no enmity with 25 of 48 26 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar any neighbours.
While no such suggestion of false deposition by PW2 Prosecutrix at the instance of her parents and police officials was put to PW7 Suman, rather it was suggested to PW7 Smt. Suman that accused was falsely implicated because of inimical term with the accused family or that her husband had taken some money from the accused and when he asked it back her husband refused and thus falsely implicated in this case, which were negated by PW7 Suman. Moreover, defence evidence led by accused by way of examination of DW1 Smt. Vidyawati, her mother and DW2 Sh. Mahavir Prasad is totally vague and is of no assistance to the accused to advance his case and appears to be a procured one by the accused in order to save its skin from the clutches of law.
DW1 Smt. Vidyawati in her examinationinchief has deposed that "My son initially was not ready to give the loan but on my request he had given a loan of Rs. 10,000/ to Darshan Singh. After one month when my son Sunder Singh demanded the money from Darshan Singh and went to his house he showed his inability and also abused him. Darshan Singh 26 of 48 27 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar used to take water from our house but we stopped his water supply. On 15.6.2009 in the morning hours my son Sunder Singh again demanded money from Darshan Singh but Darshan Singh stated that he will give such money to him that his children will come on the road and also stated that he will get him implicated in a such a case that he will not even get bail, and further stated that he will not give money but he will take money from him."
During her crossexamination she has deposed that "No receipt was issued by my son Sunder Singh for the loan he has given to Darshan Singh as he was living in our neighbourhood. It is wrong to suggest that on 4.5.2009 my son had not given any loan to Darshan Singh and that is the reason that no receipt was brought by me in this regard. I do not know the date and time when my son Sunder Singh had gone to the house of Darshan Singh for demanding his money. Myself and the children of my son Sunder Singh were present at that time. We have not made any complaint against Darshan Singh about his bad behaviour when my son had gone to his house. We have made complaint to the higher police official after the arrest of my son Sunder Singh that he was falsely implicated in this case. I have not brought any copy of the complaint. It is wrong to suggest that I have not brought the copy of the complaint as no complaint was made by my son to the higher police officials. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in order to save my son in this case."
The crossexamination of DW1 Smt. Vidyawati has knocked out the bottom of "theory of loan" propounded by her during her examination 27 of 48 28 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar in chief.
Further DW2 Sh. Mahavir Prasad in his examinationinchief has deposed that "On the day when the incident in question took place, on that day we were playing cards in the gali and at about 3.30 to 4.00 pm Sunder came there and thereafter, the father of the prosecutrix came who called Sunder and took him away from there. Thereafter, in the evening we came to know that police had taken away Sunder."
During his crossexamination DW2 Sh. Mahavir Prasad has deposed that "About 10 to 15 persons were playing cards and there was no definite number of the persons who were playing cards. Vol. Number of the persons increased and decreased with time. It is wrong to suggest that nothing happened as such I deposed and for this reason I do not know the date and time of the incident."
The testimony of DW2 Sh. Mahavir Prasad, on analysis is found to vague and of no utility. It is not explained by Ld. Counsel for accused as to what benefits he intends to reap from such testimony of DW2 Sh. Mahavir Prasad.
28 of 48 29 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar
19. The careful perusal of the testimony of PW2 prosecutrix clearly indicates that on 15.06.2009 at about 1.00 PM when she was going to the house of her maternal grand mother from her house and when on the way she was passing in front of the house of accused Sunder she was picked up, gaged her mouth and was dragged inside his house by the accused and was teased (chedkhani) for about two hours and was threatened to kill her father and brothers, if tried to raise a voice and on the same day at about 5.006.00 PM while freeing her also extended threats to kill her and to kill her father and brothers in case she disclosed the incident to anyone.
20. As far as this part of the testimony of PW2 prosecutrix is concerned inspires confidence and also gets corroborated by the testimony of PW7 Smt. Suman, her mother, to whom PW2 prosecutrix had disclosed the facts relating to the crime shortly after the incident being relevant u/s 6 & 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
21. The testimony of PW2 prosecutrix is natural, clear, cogent, inspire confidence and reliable. Inspite of incisive crossexamination nothing material has been brought out on the record so as to discredit the testimony of the said witness. In the witness box she has withstood the test 29 of 48 30 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar of crossexamination and her testimony is consistent throughout. Further nothing could be elicited during the crossexamination of PW7 Smt. Suman so as to impeach her creditworthiness.
22. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that there is a delay in registration of FIR. The alleged incident is of dated 15.06.2009, prosecutrix was medically examined on 15.06.2009 and her statement was recorded on 16.06.2009 and the FIR was lodged on 17.06.2009. The delay in registration of FIR creates doubt in the prosecution case.
As far as the plea of Ld. Counsel for the accused that there has been delay in lodging the complaint with the police is concerned. The same is found to be without any substance. PW2 the prosecutrix in her examination in chief has deposed that on the same day i.e 15.06.2009 they informed the police whereupon the police officials came and took them to the police station but police officials did not record her statement, the way she told them regarding the details of the case but the police officials recorded something of their own. Hence, she did not get her statement recorded on that day. She has further deposed that on the next date i.e 16.06.2009 again she narrated the complete facts to the police officials but 30 of 48 31 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar they only recorded attempt to rape by the accused i.e "........ mere sath zabardasti karne ki koshish kari........". She had gone through her statement before signing it and she told them that the accused had raped her yet they did not record and she was forced to sign the statement as the police officials made her to sit in the police station till 2.00 am on the intervening night of 16/17.06.2009 at which point of time her mother, father, mama and nana were also present there. They were not allowed to go until she signed the statement and her said statement is Ext. PW2/A signed by her at pointA. During her crossexamination PW2 prosecutrix has stated that her father had made a complaint on 16.06.2009 to the concerned DCP regarding not recording her statement completely and correctly by the police.
PW7 Smt. Suman, mother of the prosecutrix, in her cross examination has deposed that "My statement was not recorded by the police officials. My daughter's statement was also not recorded by the police officials in my presence at the first instance. On the next day, after intervention of the DCP office statement of my daughter and mine was recorded by police at the DCP office situated at Pushpanjali. It is correct that ours statement was recorded as per our version. Police officials recorded whatever I told."
31 of 48 32 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar From the aforesaid narration of PW7 Smt. Suman, the mother of PW2, the prosecutrix, it is very much clear that at the first instance i.e on 15.06.2009 her statement as well as her daughter's (prosecutrix) statement were not recorded by police officials but on the next day i.e on 16.06.2009 after interrogation f DCP, her statement as well as the statement of her daughter (prosecutrix) were recorded by the police at the DCP office situated at Pushpanjali and their statements were recorded as per their version and the police officials recorded what ever they told.
PW8 HC Sheikh Yakhub, who is the Duty Officer, who in his examinationinchief has deposed that on 17.06.2009 at about 4.15 AM Ct. Kiran Pal brought a rukka sent by SI Ravinder Kumar (PW13) on the basis of which recorded an FIR No. 187/2009, U/s 342/376/511 IPC Ext. PW8/1. He also proved the DD No. 56B recorded at about 8.15 PM on 15.06.2009 Ext. PW4/B (also Ext. PW8/B) regarding information about the rape of sister of the informant and the same was handed over to ASI Surjeet Singh (PW12). The testimony of PW8 HC Sheikh Yakhub is also corroborated by PW12 ASI Surjeet Singh and PW13 SI Ravinder Kumar, IO. The fact that the medical examination of the PW2 prosecutrix was conducted on 15.06.2009, on the date on which the DD No. 56B was recorded at 8.15 PM 32 of 48 33 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar has been proved by PW1 Dr. Rajmohan Trivedi, who has proved the MLC of the prosecutrix Ext. PW1/A. From the testimony of said prosecution witnesses it clearly indicated as to how and in what circumstances the FIR Ext. PW8/1 came to be recorded on 17.06.2009 from the date of the incident on 15.06.2009 on the basis of the statement of PW2 prosecutrix recorded in the intervening night of 1617.06.2009, the delay, if any which has been caused from the date of the incident i.e 15.06.2009 till 17.06.2009 of the date of the registration of the FIR Ext. PW8/1 stands explained. Nothing more can be read in the said plea so raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Delay in lodging of FIR is a normal phenomenon especially in cases like rape or outraging the modesty of a women, the aggrieved or the injured person or her relations will naturally think twice before giving a complaint to the police (Ref. Mohd. Habib Vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1989 CRLJ 137 (Delhi).
The delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the 33 of 48 34 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR. (Ref. State of Himachal Pradesh V. Prem Singh AIR 2009 SC 1010).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Karnel Singh Vs. State of M.P (1995) 5 SCC 518, has held "7.......The submission overlooks the fact that in India women are slow and hesitant to complain of such assaults and if the prosecutrix happens to be a married person she will not do anything without informing her husband. Merely because the complaint was lodged less then promptly does not raise the inference that the complaint was false. The reluctance to go to the police is because of society's attitude towards such women; it casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathise with her. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases does not necessarily indicate that her version is false (emphasis added)."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 21 in case Rajinder V. State of H.P. AIR 2009 SC 3022 has interalia held 34 of 48 35 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar "21. In the context of Indian Culture, a woman victim of sexual aggression would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Courts must always keep in mind that no selfrespecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for......."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 13 in case Om Prakash Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 2214 has interalia held "13. It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian women has tendency to conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case......"
35 of 48 36 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 20 in case Satyapal V. State of Haryana AIR 2009 SC 2190 has interalia held "20. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the First Information Report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon......."
23. As far as the plea of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the statement of PW2 prosecutrix was not recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C and this is the lacuna in the investigation, is concerned, the same is without any substance as nonrecording of the statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C cannot prove fatal to her case in as much as recording of such a statement is the prerogative of the prosecution. (Rel. Tasleem @ Pappu Vs. State (NCT Govt. of Delhi 2011 III AD (Delhi) 325).
24. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that as per the statement of PW2 prosecutrix, PW7 Smt. Suman gali people had gathered to search the prosecutrix but no any people of the gali people were examined to support the version of the prosecutrix. He further submitted that as per statement of PW2 prosecutrix when she got free then the wife of Birpal neighbour of 36 of 48 37 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar accused had seen her but she had not been examined by the police and the police had not taken her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
I have carefully perused the evidence on the record. Nonjoining of the public witnesses and non citing of any person as a witness in the prosecution case does not falsify the case of the prosecution which is otherwise proved on record by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.
It is a known fact that the persons of the public are reluctant to join the police in the investigation of any case as they do not want to undertake unpleasant task of attending the Police Station and Court for giving evidence [Rel. Nirmal Singh & Ors. Vs. State 2011 II AD (Delhi) 699].
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 696 (para 11 and 12) has held that Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals of parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere 37 of 48 38 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused'...... The prosecution case cannot be doubted or discarded for not examining strangers at the bus stand who might have also witnessed the crime. We, therefore, reject the first contention urged for the appellants".
25. In view of above and in the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has thus categorically proved beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts that prosecutrix (PW2) a minor girl, aged about 14 years, was kidnapped by accused Sunder Singh from her lawful guardianship without the consent of her guardian and wrongfully confined her in his house for about 4 or 5 hours and also criminally intimidated her to kill her and her father and brothers, if raised a noise and in case she disclosed the incident to anyone.
I, accordingly hold accused Sunder Singh guilty for the offences punishable u/s 363/342/506 IPC and convict him thereunder.
38 of 48 39 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar
26. As far as the remaining part of the testimony of PW2 prosecutrix that accused removed her cloths and tied her mouth with the help of chunni (dupatta). He removed his cloths also and committed balatkar (rape) with her. By balatkar she means to say the accused had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her, is concerned. The same is not found to be in consonance on the factum of committal of rape upon her, with the statement dated 16.06.2009 made by PW2 prosecutrix to the police Ext. PW2/A in which only the fact regarding the attempt to commit rape upon her (mere saath jabardasti karne ke koshish kari), is mentioned. PW2 prosecutrix in her examination in chief recorded on 27.03.2010 has deposed that "On next date i.e 16.06.2009, again I narrated the complete facts to the police officials but they recorded only attempt to rape by the accused i.e "mere sath zabardasti karne ki koshish kari...." I had gone through my statement before signing it and I told them that the accused had raped me yet they did not recorded (record) and I was forced to sign the statement as the police officials made me sit in the Police Station till 2:00 a.m. on the intervening night of 1617/06/09 at which point of time my mother, father, Mama & Nana were also present there. We were not allowed to go until I signed the statement and my said statement is Ex. 2/A (Ext. PW2/A) signed by me at PointA."
39 of 48 40 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar The said part of the testimony of PW2 prosecutrix is not corroborated by PW7 Smt. Suman, mother of the prosecutrix, who in her crossexamination has deposed that "My statement was not recorded by the police officials. My daughter's statement was also not recorded by the police officials in my presence at the first instance. On the next day, after intervention of the DCP office statement of my daughter and mine was recorded by police at the DCP office situated at Pushpanjali. It is correct that ours statement was recorded as per our version. Police officials recorded whatever I told." (Underlined by me).
From the aforesaid narration of PW7 Smt. Suman, the mother of PW2, the prosecutrix, it is very much clear that at the first instance i.e on 15.06.2009 her statement as well as her daughter's (prosecutrix) statement were not recorded by police officials but on the next day i.e on 16.06.2009 after interrogation of DCP, her statement as well as the statement of her daughter (prosecutrix) were recorded by the police at the DCP office situated at Pushpanjali and their statements were recorded as per their version and the police officials recorded what ever they told.
40 of 48 41 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar In view of this categorical deposition of PW7 Smt. Suman, it does not lie in the mouth of PW2 prosecutrix to say that police officials did not record her complete statement as per her version and that the police officials recorded only attempt to rape by the accused while she had told them that accused had raped her. It clearly indicates that PW2 prosecutrix has made substantial improvement in her testimony in the court, when she deposed that she was raped by the accused, which is in total contradiction to her statement made to police Ext. PW2/A. In the circumstances, there appears to be substance in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for accused that PW2 prosecutrix has stated for the first time in the court that she was raped but had not used such words either in her statement made to the police Ext. PW2/A and consequently in the FIR registered on her statement Ext. PW2/A. It is also to be noticed the opinion expressed by Modi in Medical jurisprudence and toxicology (Twenty First Edition) at Page 369 which interalia reads as 41 of 48 42 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar "Rape, is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion and not a medical one".
Analysing the said remaining part of the testimony of PW2 prosecutrix in the light of the medical, biological and serological evidence as well as the MLC of the prosecutrix Ext. PW1/A and MLC of accused Sunder Singh Ext. PW4/A as discussed hereinbefore, any recent sexual intercourse activity either by way of complete penetration of penis or partial penetration within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda is completely ruled out.
However, the act of accused Sunder Singh does sufficiently indicate an attempt to commit rape upon the prosecutrix.
In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts that accused Sunder Singh attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, a minor girl of aged about 14 years by putting off her cloths and tying her mouth with the help of 42 of 48 43 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar chunni (dupatta).
I accordingly, hold accused Sunder Singh guilty for the offence punishable u/s 376/511 IPC and convict him thereunder. However, accused Sunder Singh is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC.
29. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that as far as the involvement of the accused Sunder Singh in the commission of the offences u/s 363/342/506 IPC and u/s 376/511 IPC is concerned, the same is sufficiently established by the cogent and reliable evidence and in the ultimate analysis, the prosecution has been able to bring the guilt home to the accused Sunder Singh beyond Shadows of all reasonable doubts and there is no room for hypothesis, consistent with that of innocence of accused. I, therefore, hold accused Sunder Singh guilty for the offences punishable u/s 363/342/506 IPC and u/s 376/511 IPC and convict him thereunder. However, accused Sunder Singh is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC.
Announced in the open Court today on 28th Day of May, 2012 (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) Addl. Sessions Judge- IV/Outer Distt.
Rohini/Delhi.
43 of 48 44 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar IN THE COURT OF SH MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV (OUTER DISTRICT) :
ROHINI : DELHI Sessions Case No. : 224/2009 Unique ID No. : 02404R0219622009 State Vs. Sunder Singh S/o Sh. Manohar Lal R/o P1/3 Budh ViharI, Delhi.
FIR No. : 187/2009 Police Station : Vijay Vihar Under Sections : U/S 376/342/511/506 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE : 1). Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 28.05.2012 accused
Sunder Singh has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s
44 of 48 45 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar 363/342/506 IPC & u/s 376/511 IPC.
2). Sh. B.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for convict Sunder Singh submitted that convict is aged about 48 years and is a poor person and is having four children ranging from 31/2 years to 6 years and a wife and a widow mother to lookafter and is the only bread earner in the family and was working as a utensils seller on a rehari and is not a previous convict and is running in JC since 17.06.2009. He is not involved in any other case and is the victim of circumstances and is having clean antecedents and his conduct during the course of trial was very cooperative and prayed for leniency.
3). On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for state submitted that convict be dealt with strictly and severest punishment be given to deter him from committing the same offence in future and no leniency be shown to him. He further submitted that the convict has committed very serious and grave offences of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation and attempt to commit rape upon a minor girl aged about 14 years. He further submitted that the sentences be awarded to him of consecutive nature.
45 of 48 46 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar
4). I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. Counsel for the convict Sunder Singh at length on the quantum of sentence. The prosecutrix a minor girl of aged about 14 years was kidnapped by convict Sunder Singh while she was going to the house of her grand maternal mother and was gagged and dragged inside his house and was also threatened and attempt to commit rape was made upon her by the convict.
5). 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".
6). It has been held in State of Karnataka Vs. Murlidhar 2009 IV AD (S.C.) 1 that: 46 of 48 47 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar "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".
7). Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the submissions made by the convict, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice can be met by sentencing convict Sunder Singh to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 376/511 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five months u/s 363 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year 47 of 48 48 FIR No. 187/2009 PS Vijay Vihar and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months u/s 342 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four months u/s 506 IPC. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the convict 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 convict free of costs.
Announced in the open Court today on 29th Day of May, 2012 (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) Addl. Sessions Judge- IV/Outer Distt.
Rohini/Delhi.
48 of 48