Delhi District Court
State vs . Henry Thomas @ Sunder on 29 May, 2014
State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. 78/13
ID No. : 02401R0176942013
FIR No. : 04/2013
Police Station : Burari
Under Section : 377/354/506 IPC &
4/8/10 POCSO Act
State
Versus
HENRY THOMAS @ Sunder
S/o Sh. Sammul Thomas
R/o Jhuggi No. No-16/267
& Jhuggi No. 1797, Sanjay Basti,
Timar Pur, Delhi.
.........Accused
Date of Institution : 03.04.2013
Date of Committal : 12.04.2013
Date of judgment reserved on : 24.05.2014
Date of judgment : 28.05.2014
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh. V. Ahmed, Advocate, counsel for the accused
SC No. 78/13 Page 1 of 20
State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder
JUDGMENT:-
1. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on January 3, 2013, complainant came to the police station Burari and got recorded her statement Ex. PW4/A (in order to withhold the identity of victim being victim of sexual assault, identity of complainant is also withheld being the mother of victim and hereinafter she is referred to as complainant or mother of victim). Complainant in her statement Ex. PW4/A alleged that she had married with the accused Henry Thomas @ Sunder about 13 years ago and it was their second marriage. Since accused used to beat her for the last one year, she started to reside with her parents along with her three kids including victim while accused was residing separately along with his son for the last one year.
(i) It was alleged that in September 2012, she had left the victim aged about 7 years at the house of her younger sister at Pragati Enclave Cross Road, Sant Nagar ((since her daughter is the victim of sexual assault, identity of victim is withheld and hereinafter she is referred to as victim and in order to withhold the identity of victim, identity of sister of complainant is also withheld and hereinafter she is referred to as mausi of victim or sister of complainant). It was alleged that about 20-25 days ago, accused had came to her house and took the son and daughter of complainant from her house and made enquiry about her another daughter i.e. victim, consequently, complainant had given the address of her sister.
Thereafter, accused had taken the victim also from the house of her sister.
(ii) It was alleged that after about one week, complainant had brought her above three children and came to the house of her sister along with victim after leaving her remaining two kids at the house of her parents.
SC No. 78/13 Page 2 of 20State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder It was alleged that she intended to leave the victim at the house of her sister for the purpose of study whereas victim intended to go with the complainant and in order to scare the victim, complainant told the victim if she did not stay at her mausi's house, she would send her to the house of her father i.e. accused. It was alleged that at that time victim asked the complainant not to send her to her father as he had committed galat kaam with her. Upon this, she asked the victim about the alleged galat kaam. Accordingly, victim told her that after three days of her taking from the house of her mausi, accused had removed her underwear and touched her vagina by his tongue and thereafter accused had put his penis in her hand and also inserted his penis in her mouth and thereafter he had laid upon her and then took the victim upon him. It was alleged that accused had threatened the victim and asked her not to tell anyone otherwise he would beat him, consequently, she had not told the incident to anyone prior to that day. It was alleged that accused also used to threat the complainant on phone that if complainant will report the matter to police, he would kill her children. Consequently, complainant had not reported the matter to the police. It was alleged that she had made a complaint against her husband at Woman Cell, Pitam Pura. .
(iii) Upon the statement of complainant Ex. PW4/A, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC read with 4 & 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act in short ) was got registered.
(ivi) During investigation victim was got medically examined. Accused was arrested, he was also got medically examined. Exhibits were sent to FSL for analysis. Statement of victim was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
SC No. 78/13 Page 3 of 20State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder
2. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the accused before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 377/354/506 IPC and under Section 4/8/10 of POCSO Act.
3. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, case was committed to the Court of Sessions on April 11, 2013, thereafter, case was assigned to this Court on April 12, 2013. Accordingly, case was registered as Sessions Case No. 78/2013.
4. Vide order dated May 14, 2013, a charge for the offence punishable under Sections 377/354/506 of IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined as many as following 16 witnesses:-
PW1 HC Jaswant Singh, duty officer, proved the
FIR
PW2 Victim
PW3 Smt. Kanta Devi, Principal of school, proved the
date of birth of victim
PW4 Mother of victim
PW5 Dr. Surendra Kumar, proved the MLC of accused
and victim
PW6 Dr. Rahul, also proved the MLC of accused
PW7 HC Narender Singh, MHC(M)
PW8 HC Const. Sunil, formal witness, deposited the
SC No. 78/13 Page 4 of 20
State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder
exhibits at FSL, Rohini
PW9 Const. Rakesh, formal witness
PW10 SI Naveen Kumar, formal witness
PW11 SI Sanjay, formal witness
PW12 SI Sanyogita, investigating officer
PW13 Dr. Ashitesh Bajwa, proved the potency test report
of accused
PW14 Dr. Vishaka Nagraj, proved the medical documents
of victim
PW15 Mausi of victim
PW16 SI Roshni, dealt with the complaint made at Women
Cell
6. On culmination of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he admitted that victim is his daughter and her date of birth is January 5, 2005. He also admitted that he was medically examined and his biological samples were taken and potency test was conducted but he took the plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case as one tutor used to visit his house to give tuition to their children. Later on complainant i.e. his wife developed intimacy with the said tutor and started loving him and she intended to marry with him. It is stated that he had already filed the photograph of the said tutor on record and when he raised objection, complainant has falsely implicated him in this case .
7. In order to prove his innocence, accused has examined his son as DW1 (in order to conceal the identity of victim, the identity of DW1 is also withheld and hereinafter he is referred to as son of accused).
SC No. 78/13 Page 5 of 20State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder
8. Learned counsel appearing for the accused sagaciously contended that no reliance can be placed on the prosecution version as there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It was contended that prosecution has set up a case that the alleged incident had taken place on 20-25 days prior to lodging the FIR. Since, the FIR was lodged on January 3, 2013, thus, as per prosecution version the alleged incident had taken place approximately on December 10, 2012 whereas complainant in her deposition deposed that the alleged incident had taken place one week prior to Diwali of 2012. It was argued that since the Diwali came in the month of November in 2012, it means that the alleged incident had taken place some time in the month of November, 2012. It was further contended that initially the complainant had made a complaint before Women Cell and the same is Ex. PW4/D1 but in the said complaint, no such allegation was made against the accused. It was alleged that relations between accused and complainant were not cordial for the last one year as complainant had developed intimacy with the tutor of children and when accused asked her not to maintain relations with the tutor, complainant has falsely implicated him in this case. It was further contended that there are material contradictions in the prosecution case because as per case set up by prosecution, complainant came to know about the alleged incident when victim narrated the incident to her at the house of her sister i.e. PW15 but this fact was disputed by PW15 who categorically deposed that complainant did not visit her house along with victim after the alleged incident. It was further contended that prosecution's case is that statement of victim was recorded at the house of PW15 but this fact is also not supported by prosecution. It was contended that entire prosecution case is based on the uncorroborated testimony of victim. It was argued that since victim is the child aged about 9 years, the possibility of tutoring the victim cannot be ruled out and it will not be safe to rely on the SC No. 78/13 Page 6 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder uncorroborated testimony of victim.
9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State refuted the said contentions by arguing that mere fact that victim is a child is not not sufficient to discard her testimony. It was sagaciously contended that there is nothing on record which may suggest that victim was tutored. It was further contended that mere fact that the relations between accused and complainant were not cordial is also not sufficient to believe that complainant would implicate the accused falsely by using her daughter. It was further contended that no doubt, defence counsel has produced photographs of complainant with one tutor but the said photographs are not sufficient to hold that complainant was in love with him or she intended to marry with him. It was argued that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of defence witness as he is an interested witness.
10. I have heard rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties at length, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
11. Prosecution has set up a case that accused had taken the victim from the house of PW15 about 20-25 days prior to lodging the FIR and in order to prove the same, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant. Now question arises as to whether there is any inconsistency in the prosecution case in this regard or not?
12. Since, prosecution alleged that accused had taken the victim from the house of her mausi (PW15) about 20-25 days prior to lodging the FIR, it means that the accused had taken the victim from the house of PW15 approximately between December 12, 2012 to December 17, 2012.
SC No. 78/13 Page 7 of 20State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder
13. PW4 (complainant) when entered the witness box deposed in her examination-in-chief that accused had taken the victim from the house of her sister (PW15) about one week prior to Diwali, 2012. As per Calender, in 2012 Diwali was on November 13. It means that the accused had taken the victim from the house of PW15 on November 5 th or 6th, 2012 and complainant had brought the victim and her siblings after November 13, 2012. Since the FIR has been lodged on January 3, 2013, it means that there is delay of more than 1½ months in lodging the FIR in the matter. But no explanation has been furnished by the complainant to justify the said delay. From the testimony of PW4, it becomes clear that she did not support the prosecution version that the accused had taken the victim from the house of PW15 in December, 2012.
14. Now question arises as to whether there is any other evidence on record to support the prosecution version.
15. PW2 is the victim but she did not testify that accused had taken her from the house of her mausi (PW15). Though prosecution has examined PW15 i.e. sister of the complainant, but she turned hostile on material points and she did not support the prosecution case. No doubt, in her examination-in-chief PW15 deposed that accused had taken the victim from her house in 2012 but she did not specify whether accused had taken the victim one week prior to Diwali or in the month of December, 2012. However, during cross-examination conducted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor she admitted that accused had taken the victim from her house in the month of December 2012. Her testimony to that extent was not challenged during her cross-examination, thus her testimony to that extent remained unrebutted. In other words, PW15 supported the prosecution SC No. 78/13 Page 8 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder version that the accused had taken the victim from her house in the month of December, 2012. In the absence of any contrary evidence on record, Court has no reason to disbelieve her testimony.
16. Prosecution has also set up a case that complainant had brought the victim at the house of PW15 as she intended to leave the victim at the house of PW15 for the purpose of her study whereas victim did not want to stay there and when in order to scare the victim, complainant told her that if she did not go to school, complainant would send her to her father's house, thereafter, victim narrated the alleged incident to her. In this regard, the testimony of PW2, PW4 and PW15 are relevant.
17. PW4 in her examination-in-chief deposed that she had brought her all children from the house of accused after Diwali and thereafter, she dropped her daughter (victim) at the house of her sister (PW15). She further deposed that victim was reluctant to go to school. Consequently, she told the victim, if she did not go to school, she would send her to her father's house, thereafter, victim became scared and narrated the incident. However, her testimony is not supported by her sister (PW15). PW15 deposed that victim did not come to her house when she was taken by the accused and further deposed that victim did not tell anything to her and she did not know anything about the incident. During cross-examination conducted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she denied the suggestion that after one week her sister (PW4) came to her house to leave the victim and at that time, PW4 told her that victim had narrated the incident to her. Thus, it becomes clear that the testimony of PW4 is not supported by PW15. PW2 in her examination-in-chief deposed that she had narrated the incident to her mother after reaching home. But she did not state that she had narrated the incident to her mother at the SC No. 78/13 Page 9 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder house of her mausi. No doubt, there is a contradiction between the testimony of PW2 and PW4 as PW4 deposed that victim narrated the incident first time at the house of PW15 whereas PW2 deposed that she had narrated the incident to her mother after reaching her house. But to my mind, the said contradiction is not material in nature as moot question is whether victim had narrated the incident to her mother or not? And both the witnesses categorically deposed that victim had narrated the incident to PW4. Further, to my mind, it is immaterial whether the incident was narrated at the house of complainant or at the house of PW15.
18. Now coming to the defence version as to whether complainant was in love with the tutor and if yes, whether she intended to marry with him? And due to said reason complainant has falsely implicated the accused in this case.
19. PW4 in her examination-in-chief deposed that she had married with the accused and it was her second marriage and further deposed that she was living with the accused for the last 14 years and during said period, she had given birth to four children from the accused. However during cross-examination, she deposed that she had not married with the accused but she was living with him as her wife for the last 14 years. Thus, it becomes clear that she was living with the accused like his wife without marriage. No doubt, PW15 in her cross-examination admitted the two photographs Ex. PW15/D1 and PW15/D2 and stated that in the said photographs, the female is her sister i.e. PW4 and the male is the tutor who used to give tuition to the children of PW4. However, she expressed her ignorance that if PW4 intended to marry with the said tutor. She denied the suggestion that complainant had lodged a false FIR against the accused as she intended to marry with the said tutor. Surprisingly, the said SC No. 78/13 Page 10 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder photographs were not shown to the complainant; even no suggestion was given to the complainant that she had any love affair with the tutor or that she intended to marry with him or that due to that reason she has falsely implicated the accused. In other words, no opportunity was given to PW4 to explain under which circumstances, she had photographed with the said tutor. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the said photographs are not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that complainant was in love with the tutor or she lodged a false FIR against the accused as she intended to marry with him.
-
20. In this regard, DW1 is also a relevant witness, who is son of the accused. No doubt, in his testimony he deposed that his mother advised his sister (victim) to implicate his father in a false case and also deposed that at that time his mausi (PW15) was also present. He further deposed that her sister did not raise any objection as she was threatened by her mother by stating that she would beat her if she refused to implicate the accused in a false case. He further deposed that he did not tell this fact to the police as he was confined in a room by his mother at the house of PW15. It is pertinent to state that there is some discrepancy in the testimony of DW1 as no question was put to PW15 whether DW1 was confined in her house at any point of time. Similarly, DW1 deposed that his mother was residing with tutor Parmod as she used to quarrel with his father i.e. accused. Thus, according to DW1, complainant started living with the tutor Parmod but again no question was put up in this regard to the complainant. Accused intended to establish that he had been falsely implicate by the complainant as complainant was in love with tutor Parmod and she was living with him, thus accused was supposed to set up his defence from the beginning and opportunity should be given to the prosecution witnesses to explain the same but no such opportunity was SC No. 78/13 Page 11 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder given in this matter to the complainant. Even in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused did not state that complainant had started living with the said tutor. In these circumstances, reasonable doubt arises over the deposition of DW1 wherein he deposed that his mother started living with tutor Parmod and that he could not tell the police about the planning of his mother as he was confined in a room at the house of PW15.
21. Now coming to the next contention as to whether there is any material on record to cull out that victim was tutored.
22. PW2 (victim) was cross-examined and during cross- examination an attempt was made to show that she was tutored. Accordingly, a question was asked to the witness as to whether Ms. Subdra Mehendiratta, counsel for DCW asked her what statement to be made in the Court; similarly, she was asked as to whether police uncle told her what statement to be made in the Court. But she denied both the suggestions categorically. She also denied the suggestion that she was tutored by her mother and mausi. When a question was put to the witness as to whether her mother told her that her father was a bad man, she replied that when she told the incident to her mother, her mother told her that he was a bad man. This further indicates that witness was not tutored in any manner. Perusal of the testimony of PW2 reveals that there is nothing on record which may suggest that victim was tutored in any manner. In her cross- examination, she admitted that when accused had taken her to his house, her grand-mother was present in the house and further deposed that her grandmother used to cook food for herself and further deposed that she and accused used to take food at the dhaba, which was run by accused. She further deposed that said dhaba was located near the house of her grandmother. She further deposed that besides her grandmother her bua SC No. 78/13 Page 12 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder Raj Bhai and Rajan Bhai were also present in the house. When a question was put to her whether she used to sleep with his dadi or bua, she deposed that she used to sleep with her father and further deposed that she used to sleep with her father at dhaba and further clarified that no other person used to be remained in dhaba during night. This further shows that accused used to be alone with the victim in dhaba. She candidly admitted that quarrel used to take place between her mother and father. This indicates that victim did not try to conceal anything from the Court.
23. In the light of above discussion, I am of the view that there is nothing on record which may suggest that victim was tutored in any manner.
24. No doubt, victim did not depose the date of the incident but to my mind the said lapse is not sufficient to discard the testimony of victim if it is otherwise trustworthy. Needless to say that victim was just nine years old at the time of deposition and it is not expected from such a tot witness to recall each and every minute thing relating to the incident. Tender age of the victim is to be kept in mind at the time of appreciating her deposition. Thus, to my mind, the said lapse on the part of PW2 is not sufficient to discard her testimony.
25. PW2 in her examination-in-chief deposed that her father had taken her to the house of her dadi and he stayed at Timarpur in the house of her grandmother. She further deposed that she stayed there for 5 days. She testified that one night her father had removed her penty and started touching her shoo-shoo (vagina) with his tongue and thereafter, accused had put his shoo-shoo (penis) on her hand and also got touched his shoo- shoo (penis) on her face and lips and also got touched his shoo-shoo SC No. 78/13 Page 13 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder (penis) on her shoo-shoo (vagina). She further deposed that thereafter, accused asked her to wear her penty and stated not to disclose the same to anyone otherwise he would beat her and she further testified that accused did so only once. Though she deposed that accused had laid upon her and thereafter, got touched his shoo-shoo (penis) with her shoo- shoo (vagina), but she did not depose that accused had inserted his penis in her vagina. Though witness was cross-examined but no question was asked about the said incident except giving a suggestion that she was making a false statement at the behest of her mother, but the same was denied. In other words, the testimony of PW2 relating to the incident remained unchallenged during trial.
26. It is also pertinent to state that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act presumption lies in favour of the prosecution that accused had committed the offence unless the contrary is proved. In the instant case during trial accused failed to rebut the said presumption, thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version.
27. From the aforesaid deposition of PW2, it becomes abundantly clear that accused has sexually assaulted the victim. Since victim was not only below 12 years of age at the time of incident but also in blood relation to the accused as accused was none else except her father, hence accused is liable for the offence of aggravated sexual assault as defined under Section 9 of the POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
28. No doubt, victim deposed that accused had got touched his penis with her vagina after laying upon her but she did not state that the penis was inserted in her vagina. Even there is no medical evidence in this SC No. 78/13 Page 14 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder regard. Though prosecution has filed FSL report, but there is nothing in the FSL report which may help the prosecution to show that accused has committed penetrative sexual assault. Even the hymen was found intact. This further rules out the insertion of penis. Even in the disclosure statement of the accused, it is recited that he could not succeed to insert penis in her vagina. This further shows that it is admitted case of prosecution that there no penetrative sexual assault. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no admissible evidence on record to prove the allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
29. Since, victim did not depose that accused had not committed any carnal intercourse with her which was against the order of nature, I am of the view that prosecution has also failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC.
30. Since, the above said acts of accused also amount outraging the modesty of a female child, accused is also liable for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Similarly, accused is also liable for the offence punishable under Section 506-I IPC as PW2 categorically deposed that accused had threatened her not to tell the incident to anyone otherwise he would beat her.
31. Indisputably, no specific charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act, but in terms of Section 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused can be held guilty for lesser offence. Since, the offence of aggravated sexual assault, which is punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act is lesser than the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, which is punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, for which accused has been charged, thus to my mind, in SC No. 78/13 Page 15 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder terms of Section 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure, accused can be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Act despite the fact that no separate charge has been framed thereunder.
32. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded to bring the home the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with 354/506 Part-I of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, I hereby hold the accused Henry Thomas @ Sunder guilty thereunder.
Announced in the open Court
on this 28th day of May, 2014 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI/sv
SC No. 78/13 Page 16 of 20
State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL): DELHI
SC No. 78/13
ID No. : 02401R0176942013
FIR No. : 04/13
Police Station : Burari
Under Section : 377/354/506 IPC
& 4/8/10 POCSO Act
State
Versus
HENRY THOMAS @ Sunder
S/o Sh. Sammual Thomas
R/o Jhuggi No. 16/267,
& Jhuggi No. 1797, Sanjay Basti
Timar Pur, Delhi.
.........Convict.
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh. V. Ahmed, Advocate, counsel for the convict.
SC No. 78/13 Page 17 of 20
State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE : -
1. Vide separate judgment dated May 28, 2014, accused has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 354/506 Part- I of Indian Penal Code.
2. Counsel appearing for the convict requests for a lenient view on the ground that convict is a sole bread earner of the family. It is submitted that though accused was arrested in one another criminal matter previously but he had already been acquitted and he has no other criminal antecedents. It is submitted that considering the above facts, he may please be released for the period already undergone.
3. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State requests for maximum sentence on the ground that the convict is the father of the victim child and victim was just aged about 7 years at the time of incident but despite that he had chosen his minor daughter to satisfy his lust. It is further submitted that since minimum sentence is provided under the Act, convict cannot be released for the period already undergone as prayed by learned defence counsel.
4. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
5. Admittedly, a minimum sentence for five years which may extend to seven years is prescribed under Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, thus, I do not find any substance SC No. 78/13 Page 18 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder in the contention of learned defence counsel wherein request is made to award the sentence for the period already undergone.
6. No doubt, convict is the father of the victim PW2 who was just seven years old at the time of incident. Being the father of victim, it was the duty of convict to protect the victim from any such incident but he himself chose the victim to satisfy his lust. Convict not only committed an offence as provided under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 but he had also betrayed the faith of the victim which she had posed in him being her father. But simultaneously, it is also an established fact that victim had stayed with the convict for about five nights and convict had treated her properly during the said period except on one night when the said incident had taken place. This is one of the substantial mitigating factor in favour of the convict. In view of the said mitigating factor, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to award maximum sentence as prayed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
7. Considering the above discussion, I hereby sentence the convict Henry Thomas @ Sunder rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of ` 10,000/- in default further simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. I also sentence the convict rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part-I of Indian Penal Code. In view of the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, no separate sentence is passed for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code.
8. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and convict shall be SC No. 78/13 Page 19 of 20 State Vs. Henry Thomas @ Sunder entitled for the benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C.
9. Copy of judgment along with order on the point of sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
10. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on this 29th day of May, 2014 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge-01 Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi/sm SC No. 78/13 Page 20 of 20