Delhi District Court
Cri. App. Ladhu Ram vs State Page No.( 1 ) on 29 April, 2010
Cri. App. Ladhu Ram Vs State page no.( 1 )
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. K. SARVARIA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 01 SOUTH
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 21/2010
Ladhu Ram son of Guljari
r/o Sarvodya Co-ed. Sr.
Secondary School, Netaji Nagar
New Delhi .......Appellant
Vs.
State ........ Respondent
Date of Institution of
this Appeal : 26.03.2010
Date on which order
was reserved : 28.04.2010
Date of decision : 29.04.2010
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20/2/2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which the appellant was convicted under section 354 IPC. By subsequent order on the point of sentence the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Cri. App. Ladhu Ram Vs State page no.( 2 ) six months for the said offence and also to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine was paid by the appellant before learned trial court and his sentence of imprisonment was suspended till filing of the appeal by the learned trial court. The sentence of imprisonment awarded by learned trial court was further suspended by this court during and until the conclusion of the appeal which is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by learned trial court.
PROSECUTION CASE:
The prosecution case against the appellants/convict is that on 12/4/2004 at about 8 A.M. in the servant quarter of Co. Education Senior Secondary School, Netaji Nagar, which is within the jurisdiction of police station Sarojini Nagar, appellant/ accused assaulted the girl Kumari Rinki with an intention to outrage her modesty.
CHARGE AND PLEA OF THE ACCUSED:
The prima facie case for the offence under section 354 IPC was made out against the appellant by learned trial court and Notice under Section 251 CrPC was framed against appellant accordingly on 26/2/2005 to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Cri. App. Ladhu Ram Vs State page no.( 3 )
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
In support of its case, prosecution has examined five witnesses in all namely PW1 Assistant Sub Inspector Nirmala, PW2 Head constable Sher Singh, PW3 Kumari Rinki, PW4 Smt Urmila and PW5 Sub Inspector Ved Mantar.
PLEA AND DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED In the statement recorded by learned trial court under section 313 CrPC, the appellant/convict has denied the prosecution case in toto. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He, however did not lead any evidence in defence.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS:
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State and have gone through the trial could record, appeal file and the relevant provisions of law.
The prosecutrix in her statement recorded before learned trial court as PW 3 has supported the prosecution case and has corroborated her statement made before investigating officer which is Ex. PW3/A. She and her mother PW4 Urmila by corroborated statements have proved that the prosecutrix had gone to the house of accused in the neighbourhood to give the knife. The appellant/accused who was chowkidar in the school had Cri. App. Ladhu Ram Vs State page no.( 4 ) pressed her breast. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and her mother recorded before learned trial court which could discredit their statements in this regard. The learned trial court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and the law applicable to arrive at the correct conclusion as to the guilt of the accused in this case. There is nothing in the statement under section 313 CrPC of the appellant/convict recorded before learned trial court which may discredit the prosecution case. The mere denial of the prosecution case by the appellant/convict in the statement under Section 313 CrPC does not absolve him of the liability in this case. Therefore, I concur with the findings recorded by learned trial court as to the guilt of the appellant/accused under Section 354 IPC in this case.
As to the question of sentence the learned counsel for the appellant/convict has argued that the appellant is an old person aged about 60 years. He has already faced trial for about five and half years before learned trial court and there is no likelihood of the appellant/convict indulging any misdemeanor of similar kind in future so he should be released on probation or after due admonition and may be given the benefit of the provisions of section 360 CrPC or Probation of Offenders Act.
Reliance is placed upon K.P.S. Gill Vs. State 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) Cri. App. Ladhu Ram Vs State page no.( 5 ) 772 SC.
In K.P.S. Gill's case (supra) the appellant/accused was granted probation on being convicted for the offence under Sections 354/509 IPC. He was a senior police officer who outraged the modesty of a woman I.A.S. officer. In that case, the compensation in the sum of Rs. two lac was also awarded which was declined by the complainant I.A.S. woman officer and so was given to a women organization. Apparently, the facts in K.P.S. Gill's case (supra) are quite different from the case in hand. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the appellant/accused has outraged the modesty of a girl, I am not inclined to grant benefit of admonition or probation to the appellant/convict in this case. However, keeping in view the fact that the appellant/convict is an old man of 60 years of age and is stated to be due for retirement in next month and has faced trial for about five and half years he deserves some leniency on the question of sentence. The sentence of imprisonment of six months awarded by learned trial court, therefore, need modification in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Instead of the sentence of imprisonment for six months, this court is of the view that the appellant/convict should be directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and also to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-- in addition to the fine of Rs 2000/- already ordered by Cri. App. Ladhu Ram Vs State page no.( 6 ) learned trial court.
RESULT OF APPEAL:
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partially allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction passed by learned trial court is maintained but impugned order on sentence passed by learned trial court is modified and appellant/convict is directed to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/--. In default of payment of fine, appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant has already paid fine in the sum of Rs. 2000/-- before learned trial court, he shall pay the remaining fine in the sum of Rs 3000/-- failing which be sent to jail to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of fine for a proportionate period of sentence in default of payment of fine awarded to him. The bail bonds furnished in the appeal are cancelled. The trial court record be returned along with the copy of this judgment. The judgment be sent to the server (www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). The appeal file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open ( S.K. SARVARIA )
Court on 29/04/2010 Additional Sessions Judge-01/South
Patiala House Court, New Delhi