Delhi District Court
India In Para No.17 Of The Judgment ... vs . on 5 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, OUTER01, ROHINI, DELHI
Sessions Case No: 79/11
FIR No: 197/11
PS : North Rohini
U/s : 376/506 IPC
State
Versus
RAMESH,
S/o Shri Dhani Ram,
R/o H.No.134A, Vill. Naharpur,
Rohini, Delhi. ... Accused
Date of Institution : 13.9.2011
Date of Argument: 22.9.2012
Date of Decision : 5.11.2012
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 7.7.11 from mobile no.9868704168 call was made to PCR that at H.No.134, N.Pur, Sector7 at about 5 pm that boy has committed rape with a 16 yrs. old girl. The said information was conveyed by wireless State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 1 operator PS North Rohini to duty officer and he recorded DD no.43A which was assigned to SI Manoj Kumar. SI Manoj Kumar reached at the spot and when he found that the matter is of rape he called SI Nisha who came at the spot and recorded the statement of prosecutrix (her name is withheld being rape case). Rukka was prepared, on the basis of which FIR no.197/11 was recorded in PS North Rohini.
2. In her statement prosecutrix has stated that she resided at H.No.134A, village Naharpur with her parents and two younger brothers who were school going. Her mother and father used to go out for work whereas her brothers go to their school and she remained at home doing household work. On 6.7.11, at about 6:15 pm when she was alone at home and cleaning utensils, at that time Ramesh son of her paternal aunt (Bua) who was residing in their house since four years came and committed rape with her against her wishes and also gave her beatings and threatened her if she disclosed said fact to anyone, he will kill her but when her mother came to the house after work, she narrated the incident to her.
State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 2
3. Prosecutrix was taken to BSA Hospital for medical examination where doctor after her medical examination handed over exhibits to IO SI Nisha which were seized by her. She prepared site plan at the instance of prosecutrix and arrested the accused Ramesh at her instance. Accused Ramesh was also medically examined and doctor handed over exhibits which were seized by IO. Prosecutrix was produced before the Ld. MM who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Date of birth certificate of prosecutrix was also collected by the IO, exhibits were sent to FSL, statement of witnesses were recorded time to time and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Ramesh u/s 376/406 IPC and accused was put to trial.
4. After completion of proceedings u/s 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after called as Cr.P.C.), the Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Sessions and later on it was assigned to this court.
5. The charge u/s 376/506 IPC was framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 14.11.2011 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 3
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses.
PW1 Ct. Tarsem deposited the exhibits to FSL and proved copy of receipt from FSL as ExPW1/A. PW2 SI (Rt.) Dharampal is the duty officer who recorded the FIR of the case and proved the same as ExPW2/A. PW3 Guddi is the mother of prosecutrix.
PW4 is the prosecutrix.
PW5 Shri Neeraj Gaur, Ld.MM has recorded the statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and proved the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide endorsement ExPW5/A to ExPW5/D. PW6 Ms. Richa Sakhuja Sethi, Teacher, MC Primary School, Naharpur has proved the date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix and proved copy of admission register as ExPW6/A, admission form ExPW6/B and copy of shapatpatra ExPW6/C. PW7 Dr. Renu Lalharia, SR (Obs.&Gyne), BSA Hospital has conducted medical examination of prosecutrix and proved her MLC ExPW7/A. PW8 Ct. Baban Kumar participated in the State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 4 investigation with SI Manoj and later on with IO SI Nisha.
PW9 Dr. Uday, Sr. Resident, Surgery, BSA hospital medically examined the accused and proved MLC ExPW9/A. PW10 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, CMO, BSA Hospital examined the accused and proved the MLC as ExPW10/A. PW11 SI Manoj is the initial IO and participated in the investigation with the IO SI Nisha.
PW12 HC Rajesh Kumar deposited the exhibits in the FSL and proved the entries of register no.19 regarding deposit of case property as ExPW12/A and also proved the road certificate i.e form no.21 as ExPW12/B. PW13 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, Head of Deptt. Forensic Medicine, BSA Hospital appeared in place of Dr. J.V. Kiran who proved the MLC of accused Ramesh as ExPW13/A. PW14 Jugal is the friend of father of prosecutrix who informed to the police at 100 number about the incident.
PW15 SI Nisha is the Investigating Officer of the case. She also proved FSL report as ExPW15/E and ExPW15/F.
7. Besides this the prosecution has also proved FSL State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 5 report as ExPW15/E and ExPW15/F, statement of prosecutrix as ExPW4/D, arrest memo as ExPW4/B, personal search memo as ExPW4/C, disclosure statement of accused as ExPW8/A, seizure memo of pulunda of exhibits of accused as ExPW8/B, rukka as ExPW15/A, site plan as ExPW15/B, application for recording of statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as ExPW15/C, application for obtaining copy of statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as ExPW15/D.
8. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him but he denied the same. He stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He has not led any defence evidence.
9. Arguments were heard from Shri S.C. Sroai, Ld. Addl.PP for the State and Shri N.K. Rawal, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
10. The case of the prosecution is primarily based on the testimony of PW4 who is prosecutrix herself. In her examination in chief, she deposed that she used to reside at her home and she was not able to go to school whereas her brothers are going to school. Her mother is a working lady who was doing the job of cleaning the State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 6 pulses whereas her father is working in an atta chakki shop. She th further stated that it was 16 again said on 6 but unable to recollect the date month or year when the incident had happened. She stated that at about 6 pm accused Ramesh present in the court committed rape with her who is the son of her Bua and used to come to their house prior to that day. Accused had first threatened her to kill her mother, father and thereafter hit her with belt and also kept knife on her mouth while committing rape upon her. Her mother came back at home at about 7.30 pm and she told the said fact to her mother and when her father returned back at 10.30 pm she and her mother told the fact to her father. Thereafter her father called the police. Police came to their house and recorded her statement ExPW4/A. At that time accused was also sleeping in their house. Police woke him and took him to the police station and arrested him vide arrest memo ExPW4/B. She further deposed that the police took her to hospital where she was medically examined. Her inner clothes and salwar were also taken away by the doctor. She was also taken to Rohini Courts for recording her statement. She identified her State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 7 statement as ExPW4/D. She also identified her salwar, kameez and bra which were collectively ExP1.
In her cross examination, she stated that it was Friday when incident had happened and at that time no one was present in her house. Accused came to her house at about 12 noon. Accused was residing in her house long back but she did not know the exact year. Accused was drunk when he came to her house. She further stated that accused was a driver and employed in a school bus and used to go out at 4 am in the morning. She further stated that there are many rooms in the building in which she is residing but cannot tell the number or names of the neighbours who reside in the adjacent rooms. She voluntarily stated that she used to call the neighbours residing in the adjacent rooms as chacha and a lady who is residing in the adjacent room was bhabhi. She admitted that said bhabhi is a housewife and residing whole day in the room and having two children. Various tenants are also residing in the adjacent rooms. On the left side of her room, one lady namely Sunita resides whom she called didi. She further stated that her mother used to go for work at 10 am and Monday is weekly off. Her State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 8 younger brother go to school at 7 am on their own. Her father go to work at 9.30 am. She admitted the suggestion that accused and her parent used to have quarrel. The quarrel used to happened both day and night. Sometime quarrel used to happen on the non payment of rent by the accused. Neighbours used to gather whenever quarrel took place between accused and my parent after hearing the noise and they used to pacify them. She admitted the suggestion that prior to the incident, quarrel took place between her father and mother on the issue that accused came to the house for eating but do not pay anything to them. She also admitted the suggestion that accused had also given beatings to her brother and she received injuries on her nose prior to two days of the incident and when she told this fact to her mother, immediately quarrel took place then her mother had quarreled with the accused. She further stated that accused was not called by her father and mother and voluntarily stated that accused has come on his own at about 8 pm. She did not know what had happened after arrival of the accused. Her mother and father had asked the accused why he has beaten her brother. Accused told to them that her brother did not obey him State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 9 therefore he gave beatings to him. She admitted the suggestion that her father and mother had told the accused to make arrangement for living somewhere else and if he did not do so, they will lodged a complaint against him in the police. Her father also told the accused that if he will not vacate the room then they will vacate the room on which accused replied that they have no need to vacate the room he will vacate the room and accused left the house after taking the goods. Accused had already vacated the house prior to the incident. Police had inquired from her about the incident. But she did not told the facts of quarrel between accused and her parent to the police. Accused had beaten her with belt on the day of incident and asked her to perform sexual intercourse and when she denied he gave beatings to her. Accused had not asked food from her when he came on the day of incident but he asked her to bring one glass and voluntarily stated that accused had caught hold her hand. Neighbours had came on hearing her cries but at that time door was bolted from inside. Neighbours had not opened the bolt (kundi) of the door. She could not open the door as accused has pressed her mouth with his hand. Accused had done wrong act at about 6 pm State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 10 and she became unconscious after the incident. Therefore she cannot told when she came out of the said room. Accused had also done sexual intercourse with her twice prior to the incident. She has told the facts to her mother when accused had done galat kaam with her first time as well as second time. She admitted that her marriage talk was held with Akhilesh younger brother of accused. But she do not want to marry with Akhilesh. She admitted that she had taken admission in the school but she do not know the name of the school. She had gone to school for three years and left the school when she was not physically well.
11. Besides this other important witnesses is Smt. Guddi mother of prosecutrix. The prosecution examined Smt. Guddi as PW3. She deposed that accused is the son of her nanad (sister in th law). He used to reside with them. On 6 July she had gone for her duties at about 10 am and returned back at about 7:30 pm then her daughter told her that accused had committed galat kaam with her. She explained galat kaam as accused committed sexual intercourse with her daughter. She further deposed that accused had taken out her salwar and also put knife upon her and threatened her. At about State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 11 10.30 pm her husband reached at house and she told this fact to him. Her husband made a call to police.
In cross examination she stated that she cannot tell the exact or approximate year when she was married. Her daughter was born after two years of her marriage. She denied the suggestion that she is taking a false plea of not knowing the exact or approximate year of her marriage as her marriage took place 2223 years back. She denied that age of her daughter is more than 18 years at the time of incident.
12. Ld. APP argued that from the testimony of prosecutrix it is proved that accused had committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent, and further argued that her testimony is duly corroborated by testimony of other witnesses as well as medical evidence i.e FSL Reports. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove the testimony of prosecutrix with due corroboration by ample evidence.
13. Section 375 IPC provides that a man is said to commit rape who has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances as described in section itself. Section 375 IPC State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 12 reads as under :
375.Rape -A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions : First -Against her will.
Secondly --Without her consent.
Thirdly -With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly -With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly -With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly -With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 13 rape.
Exception -Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.
Section 376 IPC prescribed punishment for rape.
14. The prime witness of the prosecution case is prosecutrix who was examined as PW4. Before appreciating her testimony, I shall discuss about her age. In her statement given to police i.e ExPW4/A and statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. ExPW5/B, both recorded on 7.7.2011, her age is mentioned as 16 years and in her testimony which was recorded on 3.2.12 also she disclosed her age as 16 years. She is the illiterate person as she has studied only up to second class, therefore, she may not be able to recollect her age correctly. Hence her consent is immaterial, though it is not the case of the accused that he committed sexual intercourse with the consent of prosecutrix. There is no cross examination on her age by the accused that she was not below 16 years of age at the time of incident. Even the statement of PW6 Ms.Richa Sakhuja Sethi, Teacher MC Primary School, Naharpur, Delhi who proved the admission record of the prosecutrix. As per school admission State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 14 register ExPW6/A her date of birth is 2.3.1997. Date of offence is 07.07.11. Hence on the date of offence, her age was less than sixteen years.
15. The prosecutrix/PW4 has categorically deposed in her testimony that accused has committed rape with her but she is unable to recollect the month or year but in my view that is not fatal as date of incident is proved from the testimony of PW3 Guddi who th had deposed that date of offence was 6 July of last year. PW4 further deposed that on that day at about 6 pm the incident had happened. Accused had first threatened the prosecutrix to kill her mother, father and thereafter hit her with belt and kept knife on her neck and thereafter he put his hand on her mouth and committed rape upon her. In her cross examination she had stated that accused had asked her to perform sexual intercourse and when she denied accused gave her beatings. He beaten her with belt. Further in her cross examination she stated that she had raised alarm then accused caught her hand. Neighbour came on hearing her cries. But at that time door was bolted from inside. Since from her cross examination it is evident that usually quarrel between accused and State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 15 prosecutrix parent took place prior tot he incident, therefore neighbours may have not thought to interfere when they found door bolted as they have not anticipated accused was committing rape with the prosecutrix as he was her cousin brother (son of her bua). Therefore I am not agree wtih the contention of Ld. Defence counsel that prosecutrix testimony cannot be doubted merely on the ground that it was evening time. Neighbour were present but did not interfere. Ld. Counsel for accused has tried to impeach her testimony by putting questions to her that accused had enmity with her parents due to which she has falsely implicated him. Undoubtedly prosecutrix has admitted in her cross examination that her mother and father had quarreled with the accused but I do not believe that for this reason prosecutrix or her parents will falsely implicate the accused. From the testimony of PW4 it is evident that accused had already vacated the house which was the reason of quarrel between the parents of prosecutrix and accused, therefore, I am not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that prosecutrix or her family members have falsely implicated the accused due to accused quarrel with parents of State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 16 prosecutrix. Hence I am of the view that accused had failed to impeach her testimony.
16. The prosecutrix in her all statements i.e ExPW4/A given to the police, ExPW5/B given to the Magistrate and her testimony in court is consistent. I find the same cogent and reliable.
17. It is settled law that prosecutrix is not to be treated as accomplish and her sole testimony is sufficient to convict the accused if court finds it trustworthy and reliable. It was held in the case Madho Ram and another V The State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 469 as under : [T] the prosecutrix cannot be considered to be an accomplice. As a rule of prudence, however, it has been emphasised that Courts should normally look for some corroboration of her testimony in order to satisfy itself that the prosecutrix is telling the truth and that a person, accused of abduction or rape, has not been falsely implicated. The view that, as a matter of law, no conviction without corroboration was possible has not been accepted. The only rule of law is the rule of prudence namely the advisability of corroboration should be present in the mind of the Judge or the Jury, as the case may be. There is no rule of practice that there must in every case, be corroboration before a conviction State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 17 can be allowed to stand.
18. It was held in case Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753(1) as under : Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society.
On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sexoffence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration not withstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eyewitness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming.
State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 18 Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having leveled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self - preservation, or when the 'probabilities factor' is found to be out of tune.
19. The Supreme Court in case State of Maharashtra V Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 summarised the legal position in following words : "A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 19 there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the false case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence."
20. Even if I look for corroboration, I found that her testimony is duly corroborated by medical evidence. She was subjected to sexual intercourse which is proved from her MLC. In her MLC ExPW7/A, PW7 Dr. Renu Lalharia who medically examined her has mentioned that on external examination i) bite State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 20 marks over upper right breast and ii) bruise on left middle 1/3 thigh. Further she has mentioned that her hymen was torn and vagina admitted two fingers which means that she was subjected to sexual intercourse may be earlier also as stted by PW4 in her cross examination that accused had done sexual intercourse with her. However FSL report ExPW15/E and ExPW15/F also corroborated her testimony. In FSL report ExPW15/E it is mentioned that human semen was detected on exhibits:
i) Exhibit 1e: one cotton wool swab on stick, kept in tube described as 'Cervical Mucus Collection'.
ii) Exhibit 1f1: one cotton wool swab on stick described as 'Vaginal Secretion'.
iii) Exhibit 1f2 & 1f3 : two microslides having faint smear described as 'Vaginal secretion'.
iv) Exhibit 1g : dirty liquid kept in syringe described as 'washing from vagina'.
v) 2a : one dirty salwar
vi) 3h1 and 3h2 : two micro slides having faint smear described as 'swab'.
vii) 3i : one dirty underwear.
21. Hence presence of semens on her private parts proved that she was subjected to sexual intercourse recently which State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 21 corroborates her testimony that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Her testimony is also duly corroborated by her mother i.e PW3 Guddi who had deposed that on 6.7. of last year she had gone to her duty at about 10 am and returned back at about 7.30 pm and when she returned back, her daughter told her that accused Ramesh had committed galat kaam with her. PW3 explained galat kaam as accused committed sexual intercourse with her daughter. She has further deposed that her daughter told her that accused has taken out her salwar and also put knife (churi) upon her and threatened her. She disclosed the said fact to her husband when he came back and thereafter police was informed. No suggestion has been given to her that prosecutrix has falsely implicated the accused because she and her husband had strained relation with the accused. The testimony of prosecutrix is also corroborated by other official witness i.e police official. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I held that the prosecution is able to prove that accused had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her wishes and consent. Therefore, I convict the accused u/s 376 IPC.
State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 22
22. Accused has also been charged for criminal intimidation which is punishbale u/s 506 IPC. Section 503 IPC defines criminal intimidation as under : Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that peson is interested, wtih intent to cause alarm to that peson, on to cause that peson to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that peson is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
23. From the perusal of entire testimony of PW4 it is evident that though she has stated that accused has threatened to kill her but she has not explained in her testimony for what purpose accused has threatened her. Therefore in my view, necessary ingredients to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation is missing. Hence, I held that prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s 506 IPC. Therefore, I acquit the accused for offence u/s 506 IPC.
Announced in open court (Sanjeev Kumar) on 5.11.2012. ASJ01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi. State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 23 IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, OUTER01, ROHINI, DELHI Sessions Case No: 79/11 FIR No: 197/11 PS : North Rohini U/s : 376/506 IPC State Versus RAMESH, S/o Shri Dhani Ram, R/o H.No.134A, Vill. Naharpur, Rohini, Delhi. ... Convict Date of Institution : 13.9.2011 Date of Judgment: 5.11.2012 Date of Sentence : 9.11.2012 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard Shri S.C. Sroai, Ld. Adll. PP for the State; Shri N.K. Rawal, Advocate for convict and convict in person. I have also gone through the record.
State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 24
2. The counsel for convict stated that the convict is aged about 30 years; the convict has to look after his entire family comprising old aged parents and younger brother and sister; the convict was employed as driver in a school bus; no any other criminal case is pending against him and antecedents of the convict are clear.
3. The Adll.PP for State submits that convict has committed rape with a minor girl against her wishes who was his cousin sister, therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the convict be awarded maximum punishment.
4. I have considered the rival submissions.
5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para no.17 of the Judgment "State vs Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa AIR 2000 SC 1470"
"........The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the stage and age of sexually assaulted female and gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severelly dealt with. Socioeconomic, State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 25 status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused or the victim are irrelevant consideration in sentencing the policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection, therefore, imposition of proper sentence by the court......."
6. I am agree with the contention of the ld. Addl. PP for the State that the act of convict is quite grave as he has not only spoiled the life of a child but he has also broken the trust of the prosecutrix and her family and also shattered the sanctity of the relationships on which our society relies as in a Hindu family cousin are just like brother and sister. Therefore, such kind of person do State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 26 not deserve to be live in society, and such kind of persons are required to send a message to all such persons, so that, it could deter them to do such things. Both these goals can be achieved through the proper sentencing. However, convicts has old aged parents to look after, therefore, taking into accounts aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in my view proper sentence in this case would be Ten years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 376 IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for Six months.
8. The convict shall be entitled for benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. A copy of Judgment and that of order on sentence be provided to the Convict. The convict is made aware that he can file against the judgment in the Hon'ble High Court for which he could approach to the Secretary, DLSA, High Court, if he is unable to arrange any private counsel. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Sanjeev Kumar) on 9.11.2012. ASJ01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi. State V Ramesh FIR no. 197/11 PS North Rohini Page No. 27