Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj on 10 December, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 114/13)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0222842013
State Vs. Manoj
FIR No. : 157/13
U/s : 376/354 IPC and
4 of POCSO Act
P.S. : Begum Pur
State Vs. Manoj
s/o Sh. Ghasi Ram
r/o House no. 3334, Pkt. 10,
Sector24, Rohini, Delhi.
Date of institution of case 02.08.2013
Date on which, judgment has been reserved03.12.2014
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 03.12.2014
JUDGMENT:
1. The present case relates to a child G, aged about 16/17 years (according to report of the medical board) with challenged mental faculties. As per the case of the prosecution, the child G was residing with her elder sister Roshan Khatun and her family, since both her parents had already expired. On 14.05.2013, Smt. Roshan Khatun went to Bawana for some work, at about 1.00 pm, leaving behind her three children, including her daughter C, and victim G at home. When Smt. Roshan Khatun returned at about 5.00 pm, her daughter C, aged about 5 SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 1 of 38 2 years, informed her that accused Manoj had come to their house at about 2.00 pm and had sent her (child C) out of the house and when, she returned back, she saw that accused Manoj had removed salwar of her aunt (mausi G) and was pulling chain of his pant. On this, Smt. Roshan Khatun made inquiry from her sister G, who affirmed the facts told to Smt. Roshan Khatun by child C. Smt. Roshan Khatun informed the police at PS Begum Pur, vide DD no. 42A i.e. Ex. PW7/A. Upon arrival of the police, Smt. Roshan Khatun gave her complaint Ex. PW6/A. On the basis of said complaint, case FIR no. 157/13, Ex. PW7/D, was registered and the investigations thereof were marked to W/SI Manju. During the course of investigations, the victim G was taken for medical examination to SGM Hospital and the samples collected from her, were seized by the IO. The accused was arrested on the identification of the victim G as well as Smt. Roshan Khatun. The accused was also got medically examined and the samples collected from the accused by the concerned doctor were seized by the IO. The victim was produced before Ld. M.M on 16.05.2013 for her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The IO also got victim examined by medical Board for obtaining opinion regarding her bone age as Smt. Roshan Khatun was unable to produce any document of age of victim G. After completing investigation IO prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in this court.
2. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, a charge for committing the offences u/s 5 (k) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act) punishable u/s 6 of POCSO Act was framed against the accused. An alternate charge u/s 376 IPC was also framed against the accused. The accused pleaded SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 2 of 38 3 not guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses i.e PW1 to PW13.
Prosecutrix and public witnesses :
4. The PW1 Gajala, is the prosecutrix/victim child. She was produced for her deposition before the court on 18.11.2013. On the said date, on interaction, it was found that the witness was having difficulty in deposing because of her challenged mental faculties. Accordingly, IO was directed to have the witness evaluated at IHBAS. The victim child appeared before the court for her deposition again on 01.03.2014. In the mean time, one communication no. F. 19(3)/Recep/IHBAS/2014/33 dated 10.01.14 was received from Department of Psychiatry at IHBAS, wherein it was stated that the witness was evaluated in Mental Retardation Clinic at IHBAS and had been diagnosed as a case of Mild Mental Retardation with Social Quotient of 54. On that day, Smt. Roshan, elder sister of the witness was also present and stated that the witness was comfortable in communicating with her since, she (victim G) had been staying with their family (family of Smt. Roshan Khatun) since her childhood and that she (Roshan Khatun) could translate her (victim's) gestures and language for the court. Considering the report from IHBAS, it was deemed appropriate that the witness be examined with the help of her sister/support person Smt. Roshan Khatun. SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 3 of 38 4
Before proceeding to record statement of victim G, with the help of Smt. Roshan Khatun, the said support person was administered oath that she would truly and correctly translate the words and gestures made by victim G, without adding or deleting anything therefrom. Thereafter, the statement of the victim G was recorded as under : Q. Batao Gajala kaya hua tha ?
Ans. The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Baaji (witness was referring to her elder sister Smt. Roshan) kundi band karke chali gayi thi. Manoj aya. Kundi khol kar aya, isne Chandni ne sab dekha, aur mummy ko bata diya. Maine bhi Baaji ko sab bata diya.
Q. Apne Baaji ko kaya bataya ?
Ans. The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Usne galat kaam kara tha, to hamne Baaji ko bata diya.
Q. Kaya galat kaam kara tha ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Usne seene par haath mara tha. Salwar utar diya tha, aur yahan mara tha (witness has pointed towards her private parts with her right hand) Q. Phir kaya hua tha ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 4 of 38 5 which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Usne hamari ye khol kar kara tha. (the witness had pointed towards her salwar) Q. Aap Manoj ko Jante ho ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Haan. Vo Hamare ghar ke pass rahta tha.
At this stage, the witness correctly identified the accused. During crossexamination by learned defence counsel, the witness stated as under : Q. Us din Baaji kahan gayi thi ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Baaji kaam se Bawana gayi thi.
Q. Us din Chandni school gayi thi ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Haan. Chali gayi thi.
Q. Chandni ke dono bhai bhi school gaye the ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Gaye the.
Q. Kaya Chandni school se vapas aa gayi thi ?
SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 5 of 38 6
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Haan.
Q. Baaji Bawana kab gayi thi ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Chandni ke school se aane ke baad gayi thi.
5. The PW2 C, is the daughter of complainant Roshan Khatun and she was aged about 6 years at the time of incident. The PW2 is a material/eye witness in the present case. Keeping the tender age of the victim child in the mind, her statement was also recorded in camera proceedings. Certain preliminary questions were put to PW2 to ascertain her capability to understand the importance of speaking truth and also her capacity to understand the questions put to her and to answer them reasonably. After being so satisfied with her capacity and capability, statement of PW2 was recorded in questionanswer form, without oath. In the relevant portion of her statement, the victim deposed as under : Q. Gajala Kaun hai ?
Ans. Gajala meri khala (mausi) hai.
Q. Gajala kahan rehti hai ?
Ans. Hamare saath. Unke mummy papa khatam ho gaye.
Q. Kya hua tha ?
Ans. Mummy bahar se kundi band karke Bawana gayi thi.
SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 6 of 38
7
Phir, wo uncle, jo jail me hai, wo aye, aur kundi khol kar andar ghar me gaya.
Q. Phir kya hua ?
Ans. Mujko bola ki, meri patni Pinki tumhe bula rahi hai, aap
jao. Phir me chali gayi.
Q. Phir Kya hua ?
Ans. Main Pinki ke pass gayi, maine poocha, unhone kaha,
tum jao, maine apko nahi bulaya.
Q. Phir hua tha ?
Ans. Phir, main wapas ghar aa gayi. Darwaja band tha, jab
maine khola, to wo khul gaya. Maine dekha ki khala ki salwar khuli thi yahan tak (the witness has made a gesture with her hands pointing towards her ankles) Uncle ki chain khuli thi, aur susu karne wala nikla hua tha.
Q. Phir Kya hua ?
Ans. Unhone khala ke sar par haath rakha hua tha. Phir maine
dekha, to vo bhag gaye.
Q. Phir kaya hua ?
Ans. Jab mummy aye, maine mummy ko sab bata diya.
Q. Apni Gajala khala ke bare me batao ?
Ans. Mujhe unke bare me kuch pata nahi hai, par jub mummy
unhe kuch kaam batati hai, to vo ulta kar deti hai. Vo school nahi jaati.
Q. Kaya aap uncle ka naam janti ho ? SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 7 of 38 8 Ans. The witness is quiet. Q. Kaya aap unhe pahchan logi ? Ans. Haan. At this stage, witness correctly identified the accused. Q. Wo uncle kahan rahte hai. Ans. Wo hamare ghar ke bagal me rahte hai. Jahan Neem ka ped (tree) hai.
During crossexamination by learned defence counsel, the witness stated that : Q. Kaya aap us din school gayi thi ?
Ans. Main school gai thi.
Q. Aap school se kitne baje aate ho ?
Ans. Dophar ek baje.
Q. Jab aap school se aye the, ghar me koon the ?
Ans. Ghar me mummy aur meri khala thi.
Q. Apke dono bhai kahan the ?
Ans. Gulab bhai school gaye the, aur Piyush bhai khelne
gaya tha.
Q. Kaya Manoj Uncle pahle bhi apke ghar aate the ?
Ans. Haan. Pani lene aate the.
6. The PW6 Smt. Roshan, is the real elder sister of the prosecutrix G. She deposed that victim G was residing with her and her family since the death of her SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 8 of 38 9 parents and she (PW6) treated her like her own child. The PW6 further deposed that the prosecutrix G was aged about 17 years of age at the time of incident. She further deposed that on 14th day of a month (the witness could not tell the name of the month due to her illiteracy) of last year (the year before witness appeared to depose in the court), she had gone to Bawana for some personal work, leaving her younger sister G and her daughter at home and while leaving, she had bolted the door of house from outside. She further deposed that on her return in the evening, at about 04.00 p.m., her daughter C (PW2) had told her that accused Manoj had opened the bolt of the house, entered inside the room and asked her (daughter of PW6) to go to his house as his wife was calling her and that thereafter, her daughter went to the house of accused Manoj. The PW6 further deposed that her daughter further told her that after some time, she returned back home and on hearing the cries of victim G, she opened the door and saw that the salwar of victim G was removed upto her ankle and that the zip of the pant of accused Manoj was also open. The PW6 further deposed that on hearing this, she (PW6) raised alarm and also called her husband and when her husband reached home, she narrated the entire incident to him and that, thereafter, she (PW6) went along with her husband and sister G to PS where police made inquiry from them. The witness further deposed that since, her sister/victim G was mentally weak, she could not give her statement at that time, but she (victim G) had told her (PW6) each and every thing, when she (PW6) had asked about the incident from her (victim) The PW6 proved her complaint as Ex. 6/A. She further deposed about medical examination of the prosecutrix/her sister vide MLC Ex. PW6/X and about seizure of the cloths of her sister vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B. She also deposed about SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 9 of 38 10 preparation of the site plan Ex PW6/C of the place of occurrence by the IO and about arrest of the accused upon identification of her sister/prosecutrix.
The clothes of the prosecutrix i.e. one white and blue print salwar, shirt and dupata, which she was stated to be wearing at the time of incident, were shown to PW6 and were identified by the witness and were thereafter, collectively exhibited as Ex. P1, during her reexamination by ld. Addl. PP.
During crossexamination by the learned defence counsel, the witness stated that all her three children were studying in school and that her daughter and one son used to go to school in the morning and returned back to home at 01.00 pm and that her other son used to go to school at 12.00 p.m. and came back at 06.00 pm and that her sister i.e. Victim G remained at home with her (PW6). She further stated that on the day of incident in the morning hours, the accused was having quarrel with his wife in which, she (PW6) had intervened. The witness, however, could not tell the reason for the said quarrel. She further stated that she was having a house at Bawana and that an incident of theft had taken place in the said house and that due to this reason, she had gone to Bawana on the day of incident. The witness denied that no quarrel had taken place between the accused and his wife on the day of the incident or that they (accused and his wife) were quarreling with her (PW6) as her husband (husband of PW6) had not made payment of Rs. 5000/ to accused, who used to work as baildar with her husband. The PW6 volunteered to state that accused had never worked with her husband as baildar. The PW6 further deposed that she had left her home for Bawana, on 14.05.2013, at about 01.00 p.m. with one lady from her neighbourhood and that she had not lodged any report of theft at PS Bawana. The PW6 volunteered to state that SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 10 of 38 11 her house at Bawana was a small house in JJ cluster area and that as no expensive article was stolen, she did not file any complaint.
During further crossexamination, the witness stated that her daughter C had told her about the incident of her own, when she (PW6) reached home and that her daughter, told her that the door of her house was bolted from inside by the accused. She also deposed that said bolt could easily be opened by pushing the door slightly inwards as by doing so one could put a finger inside to open the latch. The PW6 denied that the mother of accused Manoj had come to her house to request her husband (husband of PW6) to make the payment of Rs. 5000/ to accused for his labour work. She also denied that the accused had been falsely implicated just to avoid the payment of Rs. 5000/.
7. The PW5, Tofiq Alam, is the husband of complainant/PW6 Roshan Khatun and he deposed that his sisterinlaw (wife's sister) victim G had been residing with them since the death of his parentsinlaw and that on 14.05.2013, in the evening, at about 06.00 p.m., his wife/PW6 informed him on phone that accused Manoj who was residing in their neighbourhood, had committed a wrong act with his sisterinlaw (victim G) and that on hearing this, he (PW5) immediately came back home and thereafter, his wife narrated the entire incident to him. He further deposed that thereafter, he took his wife/PW6 and his sisterinlaw/PW1 i.e. victim G to PS, where the statement of his wife was recorded by the police and a case was registered. He further deposed that the Police initiated the proceedings in the present case and took his wife and sisterinlaw to hospital. He also identified the accused Manoj.
SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 11 of 38 12
During crossexamination by learned defence counsel, the witness termed it correct that accused Manoj was working as Baildar. The PW5 volunteered to state that he (accused) was not doing work of baildar with him. He (PW5) further stated that he knew accused Manoj being his neighbour. The PW5 termed it correct that prosecutrix G was slightly mentally weak. He further stated that he never got his sisterinlaw treated from anywhere for her said mental weakness and that he knew that his wife never used to go out without bolting or locking the door of the house. The witness denied that accused was working as baildar with him or that he had to make the payment of Rs. 5000/ to the accused for work done by him or that since he did not want to make payment of said amount to accused Manoj, he had falsely implicated accused Manoj in the present case. Witness qua the age of the prosecutrix :
8. PW11, Dr. Amitabh, is one of the members of the Medical Board, which had examined the prosecutrix on 20.05.2013 for determination of her bone age and proved the report of the Medical Board as Ex. PW7/A. He deposed that as per the report of Medical Board, the bone age of patient was 16 years + one year as on the date of examination. He also proved the signatures of Dr. Vandana G. Dhingra, Dr. Divpreet and Dr. Indermeet Singh, the other members of the medical board, by identifying their signatures on the report Ex. PW7/A.
9. The PW12, Dr. Divpreet, is the dental members of the Medical Board constituted for examination of the prosecutrix and deposed on the same lines as of PW11.
SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 12 of 38 13
A court question was put to this witness regarding cutting/overwriting on the dental age of the victim in report Ex. PW7/A, in response to which, the witness replied as under : "On initial examination it appeared that the root of the third molar of the patient had developed completely but later on, on minute examination I found that said roots had not developed completely and so I made necessary correction in the assessed dental age."
Doctor witnesses :
10. The PW9, Dr. M. Das, proved the MLC of the accused as Ex. PW9/A by identifying the handwriting and signatures of the Dr. Prayash, J.R, who had examined the accused on 15.05.2013, under his supervision. The witness also proved the opinion regarding the potency of accused, given by Dr. Prayash, on MLC Ex. PW9/A. The witness further deposed that on that day, he also examined the patient 'G' vide MLC Ex. PW9/B, and thereafter, referred her to gynecology department for further management. He further deposed that later on, he gave his clarification at point X on the MLC itself regarding the injuries mentioned by the S.R Gyane, during examination of the patient by her.
11. The PW13, Dr. Sarika, proved the MLC of the victim child/prosecutrix as Ex. PW9/B by identifying the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Parvinder Kaur, SR Gyne. She deposed that as per MLC Ex.PW9/B, the patient i.e. the prosecutrix d/o Zahid Mommin, age 19 years, female, dated 15.05.2013 was referred to Gyne SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 13 of 38 14 Department from Casualty for medical examination with the alleged history of sexual assault by neighbour Manoj at 1:00 PM on 15.05.2013 when she was alone at home and that only her sister's daughter Chand was there, who saw victim and accused in undressed position and that the patient gave history of penetration in standing position and that during examination, the patient had subnormal behaviour but she gave the said history of penetration normally. She further deposed that as per medical examination report for sexual assault victims, the patient was found having following injuries : 1 Bruise on the right breast measuring about 3 x 4 cm of bluish green colour.
2 Small bruise on left breast of bluish green colour.
3 A small abrasion mark on left cheek.
She further deposed that on local examination by Dr. Parvinder, the patient was found mensurating and hymen was torn and that initially Dr. Parvinder had mentioned the position of hymen as 'appears to be intact' and thereafter, after cutting this she mentioned as 'torn' and finally she gave her opinion regarding the position of hymen as 'torn' in sub clause C of column No.12 of the report. She also proved the said report as Ex. PW6/X and deposed that as per the report, only one finger could be inserted with difficulty and there was slight tenderness present on vagina and that on the basis of her observations, Dr. Parvinder opined that 'the findings were suggestive of recent sexual assault'.
During crossexamination by learned defence counsel, the witness termed it correct that the victim was not examined in her presence by Dr. Parvinder SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 14 of 38 15 Kaur and that she had proved the said report and MLC of the victim, which was prepared by Dr. Parvinder by identifying her handwriting and signatures. She further termed it correct that the history was given partly by the sister of the patient and partly by the patient and that generally the name of the person, who used to give the alleged history of the patient was mentioned on the MLC. The PW13 volunteered to state that it was not a rule. She further termed it correct that the name of sister, who gave the alleged history of the patient, was not mentioned in the MLC and that they generally took consent of the patient herself, when the patient was above 12 years of age, but in the present case since the patient was mentally challenged and hence, the consent of her guardian/her sister who had brought her, was obtained on the sexual assault kit Ex.PW6/X. Investigating officer and other police witnesses :
12. The PW7 W/SI Manju Yadav, is the investigating officer of the case and she deposed that on 14.05.2013, DD no. 42A Ex. PW7/A was entrusted to her for inquiry and that at that time, victim child, her sister and her brotherinlaw were present in the PS. She further deposed that she got the victim child counseled through PW3 Anuradha, NGO official and as the victim child was slightly mentally weak, she did not record her statement and recorded the statement Ex. PW6/A of PW6 Smt. Roshan Khatun, real sister of victim, to whom the victim child and daughter of Roshan Khatun had told about the incident. She further deposed about medical examination of the victim G at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and about seizure of the exhibits of victim child, vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/B. The PW7 further deposed that on return to the PS, she made her endorsement on the SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 15 of 38 16 statement of Smt. Roshan Khatun, prepared rukka Ex. PW7/B and got the FIR in the present case registered through duty officer. The witness also proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW7/O and certificate from duty officer, regarding the genuineness of contents of the FIR, as Ex.PW7/P. She further deposed that thereafter, she along with the complainant and victim child G left PS with Ct. Bhim Singh in govt. vehicle for the spot i.e. H. NO. 166, Pocket10, Sector24, Rohini, Delhi, where she prepared site plan Ex. PW6/C of the place of incident at the instance of Smt. Roshan Khatun. The witness further deposed about the arrest and personal search of the accused and proved the arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW7/C and his personal search memo as Ex. PW7/D. She also proved the disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW7/E. She further deposed about medical examination of the accused at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, vide MLC Ex. PW9/A and about seizure of the exhibits of the accused, vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/F. The witness further deposed about getting the statement of the prosecutrix recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C, through concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, and proved her application for recording the statement of prosecutrix U/s 164 Cr. PC as Ex.PW7/G and the application, vide which, she received one copy of the said statement, as Ex.PW7/J. She further deposed about sending of the exhibits of the case to the FSL Rohini for analysis, about recording of the statements of the witnesses and about getting the permission for ossification test of the prosecutrix for determination of her age, vide her application Ex. PW7/K. She further deposed that she also got the I.Q assessment of the prosecutrix, conducted at IHBAS. She proved the said report as Ex. PW7/M. She further deposed that she obtained the FSL result Ex. PX & PY, which were filed by her in the court vide her application Ex.PW7/N. SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 16 of 38 17 During crossexamination by learned defence counsel, PW7 termed it correct that minor girl C had not come in PS at the time of lodging of complaint by Smt. Roshan Khatoon and that the age of prosecutrix was mentioned as 19 years by the complainant in her statement. She further stated that at the time when the complainant had brought the prosecutrix at the PS, she (PW7) examined the prosecutrix and felt that the prosecutrix was slightly mentally weak and that though the prosecutrix was able to speak and tell the facts of the incident, she could not narrate them in a sequence. She however, clarified that whatever was asked by her, from the prosecutrix, she (prosecutrix) gave answers to her those questions. She further stated that she did not record the statement of prosecutrix in question answers form.
During further crossexamination, the PW7 termed it correct that the accused was the neighbor of the complainant and that their houses were opposite to each other and there was a small road in between their houses. She further termed it correct that accused was arrested from his house at about 5:30 am. She further stated that she did not inquire from the neighbourers, if there had been any quarrel between complainant and the family of accused and that she did not investigate about the reason as to why the complainant had gone to Bawana at the time of incident. She further termed it correct that the case had been registered on the basis of statement of Smt. Roshan Khatoon. She further stated that she had orally examined the prosecutrix in the first instance and thereafter, recorded her statement u/s.161 CrPC Ex. PW7/X in sequence thereof.
13. The PW10, HC Vijay Kumar, was working as duty officer at PS Begum SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 17 of 38 18 Pur on the intervening night of 14/15.05.2013 and had registered the FIR in the present case and deposed regarding the same. He proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex.PW7/O, endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex. PW10/A and attested true copy of DD no. 42A as Ex. PW10/B.
14. The PW4 Ct. Mahesh, had taken the exhibits of the present case to FSL and deposited the same there and deposed about the same. He also proved the copy of RC as Ex. PW4/A and copy of acknowledgment receipt of FSL as Ex. PW4/B. Formal witnesses :
15. The PW3 Anuradha, Counsellor from Nav Sristri NGO, had counseled the prosecutrix G, with the help of her elder sister (PW6 Smt. Roshni Khatun) and accompanied them to SGM Hospital for medical examination of prosecutrix G and deposed regarding the same.
16. The PW8 Ms. Vandana, had conducted the proceedings u/s.164 Cr.P.C and proved the same as Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/D i.e. the application filed by IO for recording of statement of prosecutrix u/s.164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW8/A ; statement of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW8/B ; the certificate given by PW8 as Ex.PW8/C and application for supply of copy of said statement, filed by IO, as Ex. PW8/D.
17. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Manoj was SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 18 of 38 19 recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He admitted that he was residing in the neighbourhood of the prosecutrix. He further stated that he was working as labour with the complainant's brotherinlaw (Jija) and that on the day of incident, he (accused) quarreled with him (jija of victim) for an amount of Rs. 5,000/ i.e. his labour wages, which he (jija of victim) was not giving to him (accused) since long and that in the evening, the police arrested him (accused) at the instance of jija of victim. He further stated that he had nothing to do with the offence of the present case and that his signatures had been obtained forcibly by the Police on some blank papers. The accused wished to lead evidence in his defence and examined DW1 Smt. Babli, in his defence.
18. The DW1, Smt. Babli, deposed that accused Manoj and his wife were working for Gollu Thekedar and were to receive some money from him. She further deposed that on 14.05.2013, there was a quarrel between accused Manoj and Gollu Thekedar and that she was present when quarrel was occurred between them and that at the time of quarrel, Gollu Thekedar was threatening accused that he would see to him. She further deposed that she knew accused and his family as well as complainant and her family since last 2 - 3 years and that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of Gollu Thekedar. She further deposed that at the time of incident, no police officer came at the spot.
During crossexamination by learned Addl. PP, the witness termed it correct that since 14.05.2013 till the date of her examination i.e. on 13.05.2014, she had not lodged any complaint before any senior officers or any authority regarding SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 19 of 38 20 the false implication of accused by Gollu Thekedar in the present case. She further stated that she neither had very cordial relation with the wife of Gollu Thekedar nor did she have any enmity with her. She further stated that accused Manoj and his wife were also working as Beldar. She termed it correct that besides Gollu Thekedar, accused Manoj was working for other Thekedars also and that many a times accused Manoj had worked with her as beldar under one Thekedar and that on other occasions, she had referred accused Manoj to a Thekedar and that sometimes accused Manoj also used to refer her to some Thekedar for working as Beldar. She further termed it correct that due to this reason, she was having cordial relation with accused and his family and that she had come to Court to depose in favour of accused. In reply to some court questions, the witness replied as under : "Ques. Who had told you about this date of hearing in the present case ?
Ans. I had gone to meet the accused in the Jail on Wednesday and the accused had told me about the date.
Q. Why had you gone to meet the accused ?
Ans. He is my muah bola bhai and he is more than a real
brother to me."
She further termed it correct that generally, she used to remain out for work during noon time. She denied that on 14.05.2013 during afternoon, accused Manoj entered in the house of victim child G, under the influence of liquor, and that he sent the daughter of Gollu Thekedar outside the house and thereafter committed SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 20 of 38 21 the rape upon the prosecutrix/victim child G. She further termed it correct that she wanted to save accused from penal consequences. She showed her lack of knowledge, if police had come to the house of Gollu Thekedar or if the prosecutrix had been taken to a hospital for medical examination, or if rape upon the prosecutrix had been confirmed during her medical examination. She further termed it correct that prosecutrix was not a normal child and had less capacity of understanding than a normal child.
19. Arguments have been addressed by learned defence counsel for the accused as well as learned Additional PP for the State. In addition to oral submissions, learned counsel for accused also filed written submissions.
20. Learned Additional PP has contended that in view of the statement of PW1 victim child G, PW2 Chandni, PW6 Smt. Roshan Khatun and MLC of the victim child, prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has accordingly prayed that accused be convicted u/s. 5 (k) of POCSO Act punishable u/s 6 of POCSO Act.
21. Learned defence counsel for the accused on the other hand has relied upon written submissions filed by her and has contended that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has further contended that statement of victim child and other witnesses cannot be relied upon as there are several contradictions in their testimonies and story put forth by the prosecution and that SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 21 of 38 22 even otherwise victim G and C were tutored to state, whatever they have deposed in the Court, by PW6 Smt. Roshan Khatun. It is lastly contended that no such offence was ever committed by the accused and it is prayed that accused be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
22. I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Addl. PP as well as learned counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through the record of the case as well as written submissions filed on behalf of the accused. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case.
23. In the present case, there is no document like birth certificate etc available on record to prove that the victim G was a child less than 18 years of age as on the date of commission of offence. As per judgment in case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Cri. Appeal No.1209 of 2010 decided on 01/07/2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 would be applicable while determining age even for child, who is victim of the crime. Since in Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, have been enacted, which have come into force w.e.f. 24.09.2009 and the same would be applicable for determination of the age of the victim child. The said rule is as under :
12.Procedure to be followed in determination of Age.
(1).....
(2).....
(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 22 of 38 23 conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining -
(a)
i. the date of birth certificate from the
school (other than a play school) first
attended; and in the absence whereof;
ii. the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat;
iii. the matriculation or equivalent
certificates, if available;
(b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause
(a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i),
(ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law.
24. In the present case, since document as prescribed under rule 12 (3) (a) were not available, the prosecution has relied upon Ex. PW7/A i.e., the report of medical board according to which, the age of victim G has been opined to be 16 SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 23 of 38 24 years + one year as on the date of examination i.e. 20.05.2013 by medical board including PW11 Dr. Amitabh Bhasin and PW12 Dr. Divpreet, who examined the patient on 20.05.2013. There is nothing placed on record by defence to create a doubt about the bone/medical age of the victim child/prosecutrix as determined by the medical board and hence, prosecution has succeeded in proving the victim child/prosecutrix was 16 years + one year as on the date of incident i.e. on 14.05.2013 and thus, she was a "child" as per the definition of Section 2 (d) of POCSO Act.
25. The next issue which arises for consideration is whether the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault upon victim G, a minor girl with mental disability. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution has examined victim G as PW1. The testimony of PW1 victim G has been reproduced at length in foregoing paragraphs. From the said testimony, it is clearly brought out that on the day of the incident, when Smt. Roshan Khatun, elder sister of the victim G, was not at home, the accused Manoj went to her house and sent away child C, niece of victim G, and thereafter removed salwar of victim G and committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. In the relevant portion of her testimony victim G, whose testimony was recorded with the help of her sister/support person Roshan Khatun, the victim has deposed as under : Q. Batao Gajala kaya hua tha ?
Ans. The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Baaji (witness was referring to her elder sister Smt. Roshan) SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 24 of 38 25 kundi band karke chali gayi thi. Manoj aya. Kundi khol kar aya, isne Chandni ne sab dekha, aur mummy ko bata diya. Maine bhi Baaji ko sab bata diya.
Q. Apne Baaji ko kaya bataya ?
Ans. The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Usne galat kaam kara tha, to hamne Baaji ko bata diya.
Q. Kaya galat kaam kara tha ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Usne seene par haath mara tha. Salwar utar diya tha, aur yahan mara tha (witness has pointed towards her private parts with her right hand) Q. Phir kaya hua tha ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Usne hamari ye khol kar kara tha. (the witness had pointed towards her salwar) Q. Aap Manoj ko Jante ho ?
The question was explained to the witness by Smt. Roshni, after which, the witness had stated as under : Ans. Haan. Vo Hamare ghar ke pass rahta tha.
26. The testimony of victim G is duly supported by that of child C, who was SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 25 of 38 26 initially present with victim G, but was sent out of the room by accused Manoj himself on pretext that his wife (wife of accused Manoj) was calling her. From the testimony of child C, it is clearly brought out that when she returned back to her home, she saw that accused had removed salwar of her khala (Mausi)/victim G and had unzipped his pant and his penis was out of his pant. In the relevant portion of her testimony, child C has deposed as under : Q. Kya hua tha ?
Ans. Mummy bahar se kundi band karke Bawana gayi thi.
Phir, wo uncle, jo jail me hai, wo aye, aur kundi khol kar andar ghar me gaya.
Q. Phir kya hua ?
Ans. Mujko bola ki, meri patni Pinki tumhe bula rahi hai, aap
jao. Phir me chali gayi.
Q. Phir Kya hua ?
Ans. Main Pinki ke pass gayi, maine poocha, unhone kaha,
tum jao, maine apko nahi bulaya.
Q. Phir hua tha ?
Ans. Phir, main wapas ghar aa gayi. Darwaja band tha, jab
maine khola, to wo khul gaya. Maine dekha ki khala ki salwar khuli thi yahan tak (the witness has made a gesture with her hands pointing towards her ankles) Uncle ki chain khuli thi, aur susu karne wala nikla hua tha.
Q. Phir Kya hua ?
Ans. Unhone khala ke sar par haath rakha hua tha. Phir maine
SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 26 of 38
27
dekha, to vo bhag gaye.
No discrepancy could be pointed out in the testimony of PW1 victim G, PW2 child C and PW6 Smt. Roshan, by the defence, in material particulars regarding the incident.
27. On behalf of the accused, it is contended that testimony of victim G cannot be relied upon, since, neither the police officials nor the learned M.M, who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, had taken aid of a support person, but went on to record the statement of the victim G, who is alleged to be having weak mental condition, directly. It has also been contended that considering the mental condition of the victim G, as is reflected from the report of IHBAS Ex. PW7/M as well as the fact that victim G and child C are children, their testimonies cannot be relied upon.
28. It is a well settled law that the conviction on the sole evidence of a child witness is permissible if such witness is found competent to testify and the court, after careful scrutiny of its evidence, In case of Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341, it was held that, " A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 27 of 38 28 upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his / her demeanor must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored."
29. In case of Pancchi Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2726, it was further held : "It is not the law that if a witness is a child his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence if a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them and this a child witness is easy prey to tutoring."
30. The ratio of above cases is that the testimony of child witnesses is attributed the same kind of credibility that it attached to the statement of any other witness if the testimony is consistent. In the present case the prosecutrix has been consistent on the material particulars with regard to the incident when accused committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. Further there is full corroboration of her testimony by PW2 child C, who had reached the place of incident and witnessed it. The fact that victim G has been diagnosed to be a case of mild mental retardation with social quotient of 54 in report in Ex. PW7/M, given by IHBAS, also does not mean that her testimony is inadmissible and is liable to be thrown out, per SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 28 of 38 29 se. It is noteworthy that Section 38 (2) of the POCSO Act, specifically prescribes that in case a child has a mental or physical disability, the Special Court may take assistance of a special educator or any person familiar with the manner of communication of the child or an expert in that field, having such qualifications, experience. It is brought out from the record that victim G had been residing with her sister/PW6 Smt. Roshan Khatun, since the time her parents had expired, and was considered like her own child by PW6 Smt. Roshan Khatun. The gestures and language of victim G was fully understood by PW6 Smt. Roshan Khatun and in these circumstances, PW6 Smt. Roshan Khatun, was the best support person available before the court for recording the testimony of the victim child. The fact that the IO and the learned M.M, did not take assistance of any expert and/or person familiar with the manner of communication of child, while recording her statement, is no ground to disbelieve the cogent and reliable testimony of victim G, who despite her disability could express the manner in which the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. Moreover, the testimony of victim G is duly supported by the medical evidence on record, as is evident from the testimony of PW13 Dr. Sarika, who was deputed in place of Dr. Parvinder, who had examined victim G. It is seen that incident in the present case is alleged to have taken place on 14.05.2013 at about 1.00/2.00 pm and the victim was taken for her medical examination at about 2.00 am on 15.05.2013 and thus, the findings in report Ex. PW6/X, fully corroborates the testimony of the victim G and child C, qua the acts of penetrative sexual assault by the accused. According to PW13 Dr. Sarika, Dr. Parvinder had examined victim G, vide MLC Ex. PW9/B and also recorded her findings in report Ex. PW6/X i.e. medical examination report for sexual assault. SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 29 of 38 30 Perusal of MLC Ex. PW9/B and medical examination report for sexual assault Ex. PW6/X, reveals that the patient i.e. victim G had following injuries on her person : 1 Bruise on the right breast measuring about 3 x 4 cm of bluish green colour.
2 Small bruise on left breast of bluish green colour.
3 A small abrasion mark on left cheek.
31. Besides the above external injuries, the hymen of the victim G was also found torn and admitted one finger with difficulty. The PW13 further clarified that initially Dr. Parvinder had mentioned the position of hymen as "appears to be intact"
and thereafter, she mentioned it as "torn" and finally gave her opinion regarding position of hymen as "torn" in subclause C of column 12 of the report and initialed the cuttings. The PW13 also stated that on basis of her observations, Dr. Parvinder opined that "the findings were suggestive of recent sexual assault". Though, PW13 was crossexamined at length, nothing could be brought out put the report Ex. PW6/X and the observations made therein to doubt. The report Ex. PW6/X clearly reflects that the victim G had been subjected to sexual assault in recent past.
32. The only defence taken by the accused in the present case is that he had been working as beldar for Golu Thekedar and that a sum of Rs. 5,000 was due and payable by Golu Thekedar to the accused towards his wages/labour charges, which Golu Thekedar failed to pay to the accused and instead got the accused implicated in a false case. In this regard, accused has examined DW1 Smt. Babli, who has stated that accused was to receive some money from Golu Thekedar for the work SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 30 of 38 31 done for him by accused Manoj and his wife. It is however, not clear as to who is "Golu Thekedar", to whom DW1 has referred to. No suggestion was put on behalf of accused to any of the prosecution witnesses including PW5 Tofique Aalam, (jija of victim G) and PW6 Smt. Roshan Khatun, sister of victim G regarding identity of Golu Thekedar. The DW1 has stated in her crossexamination by learned Addl. PP that accused was working for more than one thekedar/contractor and in these circumstances, it does not established that the Golu Thekedar and Sh. Tofique Aalam, Jija of victim G, are one and the same person. Moreover, the onus of proving that a sum of Rs. 5,000/ was due and payable to the accused by jija of the victim G, was on accused himself. Except for taking a bald defence that the said amount was payable to the accused, no specific instance of any job work done by the accused for jija of victim G has been mentioned, either in the crossexamination of PW5 Taufique Alam, PW6 Smt. Roshan Khatun in the crossexamination or the IO PW7 W/SI Manju. In these circumstances, the accused has failed to discharge the onus of proving that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as Jija of victim G was to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,000/ for work taken from him.
33. In case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1393, the Supreme Court held that in cases involving sexual offences, harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. It was held that:
"The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 31 of 38 32 a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. It must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may took for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations."
34. In the present case from the testimony of prosecutrix and other witnesses examined by the prosecution and the MLC and other documents placed on record by it, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused Manoj on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I hold accused Manoj guilty for the offence u/s 5 (k) of POCSO Act punishable u/s. 6 of POCSO Act and he is convicted accordingly.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 03.12.2014) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 32 of 38
33
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 114/13)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0222842013
State Vs. Manoj
FIR No. : 157/13
U/s : 376/354 IPC and
4 of POCSO Act
P.S. : Begum Pur
State Vs. Manoj
s/o Sh. Ghasi Ram
10.12.2014
Present : Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict produced from J.C., with proxy counsel.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
In the present case, the convict - Manoj has been convicted u/s 5 (k) of POCSO Act punishable u/s 6 of POCSO Act.
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence put forward by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Defence counsel for the convict.
2. It has been submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that in the present case, convict raped a minor girl aged about 16/17 years, who was having a mild Mental SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 33 of 38 34 Retardation with Social Quotient of 54 and in view of the serious nature of offence, the convict does not deserve any leniency and she prays that maximum sentence prescribed by the law may be imposed upon the convict.
3. On the other hand, learned defence counsel for the convict submits that the convict Manoj is a young man of 24 years and is having his wife and 17 months old son and old aged parents to look after and that he is the only bread earner of the family as his elder brother is living separately along with his family. It is also submitted that convict belongs to a low strata of society and has been in custody for the last about more than one and a half years. It is further submitted that convict is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other case and he prays that a lenient view may be taken in this case and sentence for the period already undergone by him may be awarded or he be given a chance of rehabilitation by granting him benefit of probation.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Defence counsel and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
5. In the present case, the convict Manoj has been convicted for committing the offence punishable u/s- 5 (k) of POCSO Act punishable u/s 6 of POCSO Act. It is relevant to mention here that the victim child in the present case was a very vulnerable victim because of her minor age (she was aged 16/17 years) and also because of her mental disability. Further, being a close neighbour, convict had easy access to the prosecutrix and also knew about the routine which her sister, SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 34 of 38 35 Jija and their children followed, which allowed him to strike, when the prosecutrix was alone in the house, which gave him ample opportunity to misuse his position and to prey upon a minor girl with disability, who perhaps would not have been able to know, what was going on with her, if PW2 child C had not chanced to reach the spot in time. No plausible justification has come forth from convict, why such a vulnerable child would nurture enmity or grudge or ill will against him. Rather, in the present case, the disability of victim child lends further credence to her testimony. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no leniency is called for. I hereby award life imprisonment to the convict Manoj along with a fine to the tune of Rs. 10,000/, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six month, for the offence u/s 5 (k) of POCSO Act punishable u/s 6 of POCSO Act.
Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be also given to the convict.
Coming now to the aspect of compensation to the victim, who is a minor girl with mental disability, the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again observed that that subordinate Courts trying the offences of sexual assault have the jurisdiction to award the compensation to the victims being an offence against the basic human right and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a case titled as Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the jurisdiction to pay compensation (interim and final) has to be treated to be a part of the over all jurisdiction of the Courts trying the offences of rape, which is an offence against basic human rights as also the Fundamental Rights of Personal Liberty and Life.
Even otherwise, the concept of welfare and well being of children is basic for any civilized society and this has a direct bearing on the state of health and well SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 35 of 38 36 being of the entire community, its growth and development. It has been time and again emphasized in various legislations, international declarations as well as the judicial pronouncements that the Children are a "supremely important national asset"
and the future well being of the nation depends on how its children grow and develop. In this regard reference is made to the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC, 244, that :
"The child is a soul with a being, a nature and capacities of its own, who must be helped to find them, to grow into their maturity, into fullness of physical and vital energy and the utmost breath, depth and height of its emotional intellectual and spiritual being; otherwise there cannot be a healthy growth of the nation. Now obviously children need special protection because of their tender age and physique, mental immaturity and incapacity to look after themselves. That is why there is a growing realization in every part of the globe that children must be brought up in an atmosphere of love and affection and under the tender care and attention of parents so that they may be able to attain full emotional, intellectual and spiritual stability and maturity and acquire selfconfidence and selfrespect and a balance view of life with full appreciation and realization of the role which they have to play in the nation building process without which the nation cannot develop and attain real prosperity because a large segment of the society would then SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 36 of 38 37 be left out of the developmental process. In India this consciousness is reflected in the provisions enacted in the Constitution. Clause (3) of Article 15 enables the State to make special provisions inter alia for children and Article 24 provides that no child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 provide that the State shall direct its policy towards securing inter alia that the tender age of children is not abused, that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age and strength and that children are given facility to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. These constitutional provisions reflect the great anxiety of the constitution makers to protect and safeguard the interest and welfare of children in the country. The Government of India has also in pursuance of these constitutional provisions evolved a National Policy for the Welfare of Children. This Policy starts with a goaloriented perambulatory introduction."
Therefore, in order to provide Restorative and Compensatory Justice to the victim i.e prosecutrix, I hereby direct learned Secretary, D.L.S.A, North West SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 37 of 38 38 Distt. to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/ (Rs. Two lac only) to the prosecutrix. The said amount shall be used for her welfare and rehabilitation, under the supervision of Welfare Officer, so nominated by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
A copy of this order be sent to learned Secretary, D.L.S.A, North West Distt., Rohini Courts, Delhi and Director, Department of Woman and Child Development, GNCT of Delhi, for information and necessary action under intimation to this Court.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to Secretary, Delhi High Court, Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyer Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copies of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to the convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Illa Rawat)
(Court on 10.12.2014) Addl. Session Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 114/13 State Vs. Manoj Page Nos. 38 of 38