Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Sazid on 20 August, 2014
1
FIR No. 121/09
PS - Sultan Puri
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT : NORTHWEST DISTRICT : ROHINI : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. : 40/13
Unique ID No. : 02404R0199852009
State Vs. 1. Sazid
S/o Saifi Ahmed
R/o A227, Aman Vihar,
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
2. Mustakeem
S/o Sh. Riaz Ahmed
R/o A219, Aman Vihar,
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
FIR No. : 121/09
Police Station : Sultan Puri
Under Sections : 363/366/376/309/328/109/34 IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE :
1.Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 16/08/2014 accused Sazid and Mustakeem have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 363/366/328/34 IPC. Accused Sazid has also been further convicted for the 1 of 9 2 FIR No. 121/09 PS - Sultan Puri offence punishable u/s 376 IPC.
2. Shri Jitender Mehta, Learned Counsel for convict Sazid submitted that convict Sazid is 27 years of age. He is unmarried and was doing the wooden work/carpantery. He is having the aged parents to look after and was contributing in the family income. He further submitted that he is having one brother who is running in Judicial Custody (JC). He further submitted that he is having three sisters who have since been married off. He further submitted that convict Sazid tried his level best to rehabilitate himself in Tihar Jail, Delhi and did his 10th Class (Secondary Education), 12th Class, Diploma in Computer Application and Painting Course. He was also offered job by Future Mission in the Tihar Jail Placement Event. He further submitted that he is running in Judicial Custody since 09/04/2009 and is not involved in any other case and is having clean antecedents and is not a previous convict and his conduct during the trial was very cooperative and he is the victim of the circumstances and prayed for leniency.
3. Shri S. A. Rajput, Learned Counsel for convict Mustakeem submitted that convict Mustakeem is 31 years of age. He is unmarried and 2 of 9 3 FIR No. 121/09 PS - Sultan Puri was doing the labour work on the truck and was contributing in the family income. He further submitted that he is having the widow mother, three younger brothers and one younger sister to look after and his father has since expired. His mother does some private labour job at her house in order to run the family. He further submitted that his elder brother is living separately and his three sisters have since been married off. He further submitted that he is running in Judicial Custody (JC) since 04/04/2009 and is not involved in any other case and is having clean antecedents and is not a previous convict and his conduct during the trial was very cooperative and he is the victim of the circumstances and prayed for leniency.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Nimmi Sisodia, Learned Addl. PP for State submitted that seeing the gravity of the offences, the convicts be dealt with strictly and severest punishment be given to deter them from committing the same offences in future and no leniency be shown to them.
5. I have heard the Learned Addl. PP for the State and the Learned Counsel for the convicts Sazid and Mustakeem on the quantum of sentence at length. That on 02/04/2009, at about 9:30 p.m. when after purchasing book 3 of 9 4 FIR No. 121/09 PS - Sultan Puri from the Book Store, PW1 - prosecutrix was heading towards her house, at House No. F2/222, Shani Bazar Road, Sultan Puri, Delhi, on the road near the Book Store, both the convicts Sazid and Mustakeem in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped PW1 prosecutrix, aged about 15½ years (to be exact 15 years 08 months and 22 days), from her legal guardianship without the consent of her guardians, with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, by forcibly making her sit on the motorcycle and in furtherance of their common intention, convict Mustakeem, who came from the back side, and administered her some stupefying substance by putting a handkerchief on her mouth, with intent to facilitate the commission of kidnapping, due to which she became unconscious and both the convicts Sazid and Mustakeem, in furtherance of their common intention, took her on the motorcycle to Baghpat, U.P. at the house of sister of convict Mustakeem and in furtherance of their common intention, both the convicts Sazid and Mustakeem forcefully took her from Baghpat, U.P. to Meerut Railway Station and then convict Sazid took her by train to Gwalior and thereafter, from Gwalior convict Sazid brought her by train to New Delhi and then took her back to U.P. by bus and thereafter, on the intervening night of 0405/04/2009, convict Sazid brought her to Delhi, at the house of his brother, where he 4 of 9 5 FIR No. 121/09 PS - Sultan Puri (convict Sazid) mixed some intoxicating substance in her meals, after eating of which she became unconscious and convict Sazid forcibly committed rape upon her without her consent and against her will and then, while taking her from the house of his brother, on the way to the Police Station - Sultan Puri, convict Sazid forcibly made her to consume/drink poison even she refused to consume the same and forcibly put the poison in her mouth in order to kill her.
6. 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".
7. It has been held in 'State of Karnataka Vs. Murlidhar', 2009 IV AD (S.C.) 1 that : "The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system 5 of 9 6 FIR No. 121/09 PS - Sultan Puri 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".
8. In 'Mulla & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 508, after considering various earlier decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "It is settled legal position that the punishment must fit the crime. It is the duty of the Court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. As a measure of social necessity and also as a means of deterring other potential offenders, the sentence should be appropriate be fitting the crime".
9. In 'Pushpanjali Sahu Vs. State of Orissa', (2012) 9 SCC 705 in para 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "Sexual violence is not only an unlawful invasion of the right of privacy and sanctity of a woman but also a serious blow to her honour. It leaves a traumatic and humiliating impression on her conscienceoffending 6 of 9 7 FIR No. 121/09 PS - Sultan Puri her selfesteem and dignity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, but a crime against the entire society. It indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour reputation and not the least her chastity. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely the right of life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely" (Para 12).
10. In Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey and another (1992) 3 SCC 204, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows : "...though all sexual assaults on female children are not reported and do not come to light yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. This is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer resistance and becomes easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls. Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilized society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms."
11. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the submissions made on behalf of both the convicts and after delicately balancing and giving due consideration to the facts and 7 of 9 8 FIR No. 121/09 PS - Sultan Puri circumstances, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which the offences had been committed, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice can be met by sentencing convicts Sazid and Mustakeem to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each u/s 363/34 IPC. Convicts Sazid and Mustakeem are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each u/s 366/34 IPC. Convicts Sazid and Mustakeem are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each u/s 328/34 IPC. Convict Sazid is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 376 IPC. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the convicts Sazid and Mustakeem during the inquiry/investigation/trial of this case shall be set off under section 428 8 of 9 9 FIR No. 121/09 PS - Sultan Puri Cr.P.C.
A copy of judgment as well as that of order on sentence be given to both the convicts free of costs.
Announced in the open Court (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) th on 20 Day of August, 2014 Additional Sessions Judge Special Fast Track Court (N/W District), Rohini, Delhi 9 of 9