Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Case Of State Of Punjab vs Gurmit on 28 August, 2008

                               1


     IN THE COURT OF SH. P.S.TEJI : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :
                         NEW DELHI.


SC No. 37/05                       FIR No. 202/05
                                   PS: Vasant Kunj.
                                   U/S. 376 IPC.
State

        Versus


Rajesh @ Kuka s/o Sh. Jagdish
R/o Jhuggi Rangpuri Pahari Hoti
Camp, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

Permanent R/o Village Badrola,
PS Chayasa, District Faridabad,
Haryana.


JUDGMENT

This is an unfortunate case where the accused to complete his lust committed an act on a small minor girl of five years for which he has been sent for trial for offence under Section 376 IPC in a case arising out of FIR No. 202/05 by PS Vasant Kunj.

2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 2 24.3.2005, Sh. Roshan Lal gave a statement to the police that he was residing at Jhuggi No. 917, Rangpuri Pahari, Hoti Camp for the last five years and having two daughters Aarti aged 5 years and Deepika 8 months. He stated that on 24.3.2005 after noon at about 3.30 PM, her daughter Aarti aged 5 years was playing out side the house and got missing all of a sudden and on not hearing her noise, he started watching here and there but she could not meet and under tension he started searching his daughter, when he heard noise of some child in the corner of the jhuggies from a ditch and when he peeped, he noticed that the boy who was his neighbour named Rajesh @ Kooka was lying down on his daughter after removing his pant, after laying down her daughter on the stone and when he gave call he left the child and after getting his pant run away to the other side of the ditch who could not be caught by him and her daughter told by weeping loudly and putting hand in the middle of both her legs stated that Rajesh @ Kooka 3 after removing her underwear created pain inside. He further stated that all the jhuggi persons collected and started searching Rajesh. He further stated that when he did not meet, as per advise of the family members he brought the girl to the police station and she was got medically examined at Safdarjung Hospital. On the basis of this statement, SI Jarnail Singh wrote rukka and got registered the present case. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation challan was filed.

3. Charge for offence under Section 376 IPC was framed against accused on 19.7.2005 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW-1 Aarti aged 5 years in the court and after satisfying from the preliminary examination, his statement was recorded wherein she stated that she did not know accused present in court nor seen him earlier. 4 She stated that she had not caused any harm to her. However, on question "Kahbi apke saath ganda kaam kiya kise nai", she stated yes. On question Kisne Ganda Kaam Kiya, she pointed out with finger towards the accused. When asked what was the name of accused present in court pointed out by her, she stated Kuka. She identified the accused correctly. She stated that accused had taken her to jungle and performed ganda kaam with her in jungle. She stated that accused had removed her cloths. Kuka was not wearing cloths. She stated that Kuka caused pain to her, thereafter, her father came and brought her. She stated that accused Kuka run away from the spot when her father came. She further stated that accused was lying over her after removing the cloths. She stated that when she was brought by her father, police uncle and aunty met her who, inquired her and she told to them that Kuka perform ganda kaam with her and run away from the spot after seeing her father. She pointed out towards her private 5 part and stated that she was suffering pain at that place by ganda kaam by accused. She stated that she was medically examined by the doctor in hospital and identified her underwear Ex. P-1.

In cross-examination she stated that police aunty met her outside the court and told as to what is to be stated. She also pointed out to her towards accused and she was told to point out the place where she suffered pain. She stated that she was told her statement of her parents and police aunty. She stated that she was never kidnapped by any one, no body caused pain to her.

5. PW-2 Sh. Roshan Lal has deposed that he was residing at the aforesaid house for the last 6 years and have 2 daughters, the elder one is Aarti aged about 5 years at that time and younger was Deepika about 8 months at that time. He deposed that on 24.3.2005 at about 3.30 PM her daughter Aarti was plying outside but 6 suddenly she disappeared, initially he waited for 5 to 10 minutes, then he went in search of his daughter in the locality and he was calling her by name in the surrounding area. He deposed that when he reached near a ditch at some distance from his house, he heard cries of his daughter, on hearing the noise he went towards the said direction and on reaching there he saw his daughter lying on the ground and accused present in court had already put off his paint which was lying there and accused was lying on her daughter; on seeing him, he immediately get up and started putting on his paint and fled away from the spot. He deposed that when he reached near his daughter he found that she was nervous and weeping, her undergarments were found removed and he took her to his house. He deposed that on inquiry from his daughter she told that Kukka took her to that place and committed wrong acts with her, thereafter, he along with his mother in law took her daughter to police station and narrated the incident to SI 7 Jernail Singh. He further deposed that one lady police had recorded the statement of her daughter and she was taken toAIIMS, again stated Safdarjung Hospital for her medical examination and after medical examination they again went to police station. He proved his statement Ex. PW 2/A. He stated that undergarments of her daughter were taken into possession at the hospital itself. He further deposed that on 31.3.2005 he had joined the investigation with the police, when two policemen along with one lady police came to his house at about 10 AM, thereafter they went in search of accused and at 4.30 to 5 PM he pointed out the accused and on seeing them accused started running but chased by police and apprehended. He proved the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW 2/B and 2/C. He also proved disclosure of accused as Ex. PW 2/D. He deposed that photocopy of date of birth certificate of his daughter was seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/E. 8 In cross-examination he stated that Ex. PW 2/A is not in his handwriting but it was recorded by police and it was read over to him when he confirmed it as correct and signed. He stated that accused was residing adjacent to his house for approximately 3 years and he had no prior enmity with accused and used to come to his house. He stated that there are other houses also surrounded near to his house. He stated that place where incident took place is at a distance of about 60 meters from his house and there are 8 to 10 houses falls in a way to the place of incident from his house. He stated that there is no house situated near the place of incident but there are ditches and a cremation ground also. He stated that when he saw accused with his daughter no one else was present near the spot and accused fled away on seeing him, hence, he did not raise any alarm. He stated that he saw accused from the distance of 15 to 20 paces in a ditch, his wife was present at her work place at the time of 9 incident. He stated that he can not say which doctor had medically examined her daughter as he remained outside the room, history about the incident was told to doctor by lady police. He denied that there was dispute his dispute with accused on account of rasta in gali.

6. PW-3 SI Jarnail Singh has deposed that on 24.3.2005 he was posted at PS Vasant Kunj and was on emergency duty. He deposed that around 4.30 PM complainant Roshan Lal along with his daughter Aaarti aged about 5 years came to PS and met him and narrated the incident of rape committed by Rajesh @ Hooka on her daughter. He deposed that immediately he along with Ct. Satyawan and W/HC Krishan took Aarti and her father to Safdarjung Hospital and Dr. Neetasha Goyal at Gynecology ward examined her vide MLC and doctor also endorsed about the sexual assault incident on victim Aarti, then they returned back to PS and recorded statement of complainant Roshan Lal and got 10 the case registered by making tehrir Ex. PW 3/A and after registration of FIR further investigation was marked to W/ASI Saroj Bala. He deposed that in hospital one sealed parcel duly sealed by doctor was handed over to her with sample seal which was seized vide memo Ex. PW 3/B. In cross-examination he deposed that he had not mentioned history of rape to the doctor and he handed over tehrir to the duty officer at about 8.30 PM on 24.3.2005 and deposited sealed parcel in PS Malakhana.

7. PW-4 HC Krishna has deposed that on 24.3.2005 she was posted at PS Vasant Kunj and on that day one girl child aged 5 years came to PS along with her father and she was directed by SI Jarnail Singh to accompany him for medical of the said girl child and thereafter she along with SI Jarnail Singh, Ct. Satyawan and girl child with her father went to Safdarjung Hospital 11 where girl child was medically examined and doctor on duty handed over SI Jarnail Singh one sealed bottle and came back to PS with the girl child. She deposed that she also inquired from the girl child about the incident and girl child told her that Rajesh @ Kuka who is neighbour committed Galat Kaam with her. She further deposed that IO seized sample bottle given in hospital vide memo Ex. PW 3/B. In cross-examination she stated that she signed memo Ex. PW 3/B and she inquired from prosecutrix about the incident prior to the medical.

8. PW-5 HC Ram Kishore has deposed that on 24.3.2005 he was posted in PS Vasant Kunj and working as duty officer from 4 PM to 12 midnight and on that day at about 8.30 PM he received rukka handed over by SI Jairnal Singh and lodged FIR no. 202/05 under Section 376 IPC. He proved copy of the same as Ex. PW 5/A by producing the original FIR.

9. PW-6 Ct. Rajesh Kadian has deposed that on 31.3.2005 he along with Ct. Ravi and ASI Saroj Bala went to Jota Camp,Rang Pur Pahari where Roshan Lal, father of the prosecutrix met them and he also accompanied the police party in search of accused and arrested the accused. He proved arrest and seizure memo of the accused as Ex. PW 2/B and 2/C and disclosure Ex. PW 2/D and identified the accused in court.

In cross-examination he deposed that they left the police station at about 10.30 AM and remained at the spot till 6 PM and asked 5-6 public persons to join investigation but they refused to do.

10. PW-7 HC Ravi Kumar has deposed that on 31.3.2005 he was posted in PS Vasant Kunj and on that day he along with Ct. Rajesh, ASI Saroj Bala went to Hoti Camp Rang Puri Pahari where Roshan Lal, father of the prosecutrix met them and searched for the accused 13 and arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW 2/B and 2/C and made disclosure statement Ex. PW 2/D. In cross-examination he deposed that they left the police station at about 10.30 AM and remained at the spot till 2.15 PM and accused was apprehended at about 1.30 PM and they asked 5-6 public persons to join investigation but they refused.

11. PW-8 Sh. Narender Pal Singh, record clerk Safdarjung Hospital has deposed that he has brought MLC pertaining to the patient Aarti d/o Sh. Roshan Lal aged 5 years female and MLC was prepared by Dr. Nitasha Goel who had left the services of hospital and her whereabouts are not known. He identified handwriting and signatures of the doctor on MLC Ex. PW 8/A. In cross-examination he stated that permanent address of the doctors are available in academic section of the hospital. He stated that MLC 14 was not prepared in his presence nor patient was brought in his presence.

12. PW-9 Dr. Gaurav Aggarwal has deposed that on 1.4.2005 he was posted as Asstt. Professor Forensic medicine, Safdarjung Hospital when he examined one Rajesh @ Kooka at 12.15 PM brought by ASI Saroj Bala for assessing the capability or incapability to perform sexual intercourse of the patient Rajesh @ Kooka and after medical examination of the accused he opined that there was nothing to indicate that the accused was not capable of performing sexual intercourse. He proved his report as Ex. PW 9/A.

13. PW-10 Sh. V.K. Khanna Addl. District Judge has proved statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW 10/B. He has deposed that on 12.4.2005 prosecutrix Aarti was preferred to his court by link MM Ila Rawat as prosecutrix wanted to make 15 statement and he adopted the due process and certain questions were put to the prosecutrix whether she could make statement. He proved the application Ex. PW 10/A.

14. PW-11 Sh. Vijay Yadav, Sub Registrar Birth and Death has deposed that he has brought birth report of a female child born from the wedlock of Sh. Roshan Lal Chauhan and Smt. Bimla Devi R/o Rangpuri Pahari, New Delhi 37. He proved the birth certificate as Ex. PW 11/A by producing the original record and as per that report date of birth was 14.10.2000.

15. PW-12 ASI Saroj Bala has deposed that on 24.3.2005 he was posted at PS Vasanj Kunj and investigation of this case was handed over to her after registration of case FIR. She deposed that SI Jarnail Singh handed over her MLC of victim, seizure memo of case property. She deposed that girl and her mother were 16 present in the police station and she recorded their statements and on 25.3.2005 she visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW 12/A and searched for the accused. She deposed that on 31.3.2005 accused Rajesh @ Kooka was arrested vide arrest and seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B and 2/C. She deposed that accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW 2/D and accused was medically examined through Ct. Zafar. She deposed that she seized blood gauze handed over by the doctor vide memo Ex. PW 12/B and produced the accused in court. She deposed that prosecutrix was produced in court for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. vide application Ex. PW 12/C and got recorded her statement. She also proved FSL report Ex. PW 12/D, birth certificated seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/E, birth certificate Ex. PW 11/A. She identified the accused in the court.

In cross-examination she deposed that investigation of the case was handed over to her after 9 17 PM. She deposed that there was only one seizure memo which contains undergarments of prosecutrix and other exhibit was contained in a jar. She denied that she conducted investigation at the instance of parents of the victim.

16. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied the incident. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

17. No defence witness was produced by the accused.

18. I have heard the ld. APP for the State and Sh. S.K. Saxena, amicus curiae for the accused.

19. The prosecution to prove its case produced its main witness i.e. the prosecutrix five year girl 18 as PW-1 whose testimony was recorded in question- answer form as under:-

" Q. Kabhi apke saath ganda kaam kiya kise nai?

Ans. Yes.

Q. Kisne Ganda Kaam Kiya?

Ans. Witness pointed out with finger towards the accused.

Q. What is the name of accused present in court pointed out by you?

Ans. Kuka.

She stated that accused had taken her to jungle, accused perform the ganda kaam with her in jungle. Accused removed her cloths. Kuka was not wearing cloths. The kuka caused pain to her. Thereafter her father came and brought her. Accused Kuka run away from the spot when her father came. She stated that accused was lying over her after removing the cloths.

                       She    pointed out towards her
          private part       and stated that she was
                            19

suffering pain at that place by ganda kaam by accused.

20. The testimony of PW-1 was corroborated by PW-2 Sh. Roshan Lal, the father of the prosecutrix who deposed that he went in search of his daughter in the locality and he was calling her by name in the surrounding area. He deposed that when he reached near a ditch at some distance from his house, he heard cries of his daughter, on hearing the noise he went towards the said direction and on reaching there he saw his daughter lying on the ground and accused present in court had already put off his paint which was lying there and accused was lying on her daughter; on seeing him, he immediately get up and started putting on his paint and fled away from the spot. He deposed that when he reached near his daughter he found that she was nervous and weeping, her undergarments were found 20 removed and he took her to his house. He deposed that on inquiry from his daughter she told that Kukka took her to that place and committed wrong acts with her, thereafter, he along with his mother in law took her daughter to police station. He deposed that photocopy of date of birth certificate of his daughter was seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/E. He stated that accused was residing adjacent to his house for approximately 3 years and he had no prior enmity with accused and used to come to his house. He stated that there is no house situated near the place of incident but there are ditches and a cremation ground also. He stated that when he saw accused with his daughter no one else was present near the spot and accused fled away on seeing him, hence, he did not raise any alarm. He stated that he saw accused from the distance of 15 to 20 paces in a ditch, his wife was present at her work place at the time of incident. 21

21. Both the witness were cross examined. Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 established the occurrence and no dent could be put by the cross examination, they are trustworthy witnesses and there is nothing on the record to create any doubt on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. The age of the prosecutrix has been proved on the record by examining PW-11 Vijay Yadav from the office of Sub Registrar and the birth certificate has been proved as Ex.PW11/A. No enemity or reason could be established on the record for the false implication of the accused except that there was some dispute with regard to over the rasta and even the same is not established on the record. The accused simply claimed himself to be innocent and falsely implicated in the case. As mentioned above, the testimony of the prosecutrix PW-1 as well as PW-2 remained consistent and trustworthy and no reasonable suspicion can be put on their version. In other words, the occurrence has been established 22 without beyond reasonable doubt.

                    The court while appreciating      the evidence
                    of a prosecutrix       may    look for some

assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the 23 charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at part with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence or corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape.

Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance or prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a 24 victim of another person's lust and it is not improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable."

23. The view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh (supra) were consistently followed in the other matters and one of those matter is of State of Karnataka Vs. Manjanna reported as AIR 2000 SC 2231.

24. The discussion made above with regard to evidence led in the present case and the law laid 25 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been established on the record qualitatively and quantitatively by leading the evidence of the prosecutrix who happened to be minor girl of five years and her father PW-2 Sh Roshan Lal and other witnesses, it has been established that the statement of the prosecutrix and her father PW-2 duly corroborated by the medical evidence does not found any lacking from any aspect and it is trustworthy and reliable as nothing adverse to the same could be pointed out on the record and it proves that the act alleged by the prosecutrix has been committed by the accused in the present case.

25. So far the legal aspect is concerned the accused has been charged u/s 376 IPC which has been defined us/ 375 IPC which reads as under:-

Rape.- A man is said to commit "rape who except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of 26 the six following descriptions:-

First.: Against her will. Secondly- without her consent. Thirdly.- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or hurt.

Fourthly.- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believe herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly.- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly.- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age, Explanation.- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Exception.- Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.

26. In the present case the medical examination of the prosecutrix is established from the MLC Ex.PW8/A which reads as under:-

" alleged H/o sexually assaulted by a neighbour boy named Hooka( Rajesh). As per the history given by her father, rape was attempted by a boy named Hooka (Rajesh) at 3.30 PM today,"

On local examination following injury were mentioned " No scar marks on face/upper limbs, scar marks present over the legs. Vulva inflemmed and swollen- blood stains Hymen- lacerations present. "

The medical examination shows that the hymen was neither torn nor raptured rather it has been shown that there was lacerations on the hymen which shows that there was no penetration. Without the penetration the act committed with any prosecutrix cannot be termed as rape.

27. So, from the discussion made above, it is established that though the accused has been alleged to do "ganda kaam", but the commission of rape has not been established as defined in Section 375 IPC and as per the settled law. So, the accused cannot be said to be guilty for the commission of rape u/s 376 IPC and deserves to be acquitted from the charge of rape.

28. Though, the accused has not been found guilty for the commission of rape, but there is an attempt on the part of the accused. Despite the 29 accused being failed to penetrate, he had made the attempt to penetrate and commit the rape. The attempt has been defined u/s 511 IPC and as per Section 511 IPC whoever intend to do an act with the intention or knowledge necessary for the commission of offence would be liable to be guilty for the attempt to commit the offence attempted for. For the purposes of criminal act, there are four distinct stages. Firstly, the intention. Secondly, the preparation. Third, an attempt. Fourth is the complete attempt. In the present case, though the accused could not complete the act, but definitely intended and attempted to commit the rape. The fact established in the present case is that the accused removed the clothes of the prosecutrix, lay her down on the ground and after removing his clothes, on lying on her, caused pain to the prosecutrix in her private part which definitely would amount an attempt to commit rape. The above mentioned fact not only established by the prosecutrix (as per State of Punjab Vs. 30 Gurmit Singh's case) but also corroborated by PW-2 father of the prosecutrix who happened to be eye- witness and evident from the MLC Ex.PW8/A.

29. The Hon'ble High Court held that where there was no injury on the private part of the prosecutrix except minor injury on hymen, which shows that penetration was not complete but attempt to penetrate is made, the accused would be guilty for offence falling u/s 376/511 IPC (1991 Crl. L.R. (Raj) 427). Similarly, in the circumstances where the accused felled the prosecutrix on the ground, made here naked, exposed his private parts and actually laid himself on the girl and tried to intrude his male organ in her private part the act amounted to an attempt to rape. (AIR 1967 Raj. 149).

30. The testimony of prosecutrix PW-1, testimony of PW-2, other witnesses and Ex.PW8/A in the present case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble 31 Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh (supra), 1991 Crl. L.R. (Raj) 427 and AIR 1967 Raj. 149, bring the act of the accused within the four corners of the offence of "attempt to commit rape" and made the accused guilty u/s 376/511 IPC. Consequently, the accused is hereby held guilty for the commission of offence u/s 376 read with Section 511 IPC. Announced in open court. ( P.S.TEJI) Today:-27th August, 2008. Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi.

IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NEW DELHI S.C. No.37/2005 FIR No.242/2002 P.S. Badar Pur U/s 307/34 IPC State Versus Rajesh @ Kuka ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide judgment dated 27.8.2008, Rajesh @ Kuka was convicted for offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC.

2 I have heard the ld. APP for the State as well as ld. Amicus curiae for the convict Rajesh @ Kuka on the quantum of sentence.

3 It has been submitted by the amicus curiae for the convict that the convict is 21 years of age and his grandfather is dependent upon him. The amicus curiae further argued that the convict is in JC since last about 3 years and 5 months and taking the lenient view he may be released on the 33 imprisonment already undergone. Whereas Ld. APP has argued that keeping in view the act of the convict to attempt to commit rape on a small girl of five years, convict may be awarded maximum sentence.

4 I have gone through the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 4.8.2008 in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pappu @ Ajay (Reported as 2008 VIII AD (SC) 581) in which it has been held as under:-

"13.Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence 34 inbuilt in the sentencing system.

14.The Court will be falling in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal". If for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lost its relevance."

5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations in the present case that the convict attempted to commit rape of minor girl of five years but could not succeed to complete the act of rape and that is the reason he has been found guilty for attempt to commit the rape. The allegations levelled against the convict are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in 35 view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pappu @ Ajay (supra) and keeping in view the age and dependency of the convict, the convict is hereby sentenced for the imprisonment for five years i.e. one half of 10 years sentence provided u/s 376 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further sentence of 2 months for the offence committed i.e. attempt to commit rape u/s 376/511 IPC. Convict is entitled for benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

5 Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied free of cost to the convict. 6 File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open Court (P.S. TEJI) on 28.8.2008 Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi