Delhi District Court
State vs Mr.Sunny @ Sidharth on 27 March, 2018
-:: 8 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01, WEST,
SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
New Sessions Case Number : 235/2017.
Old Sessions Case Number : 76/2017.
State
versus
Mr.Sunny @ Sidharth
Son of Mr.Rajeshwar Singh
Resident of House Number T-103, First floor,
Near Lal Mandir, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 67/2017.
Police Station Patel Nagar.
Under section 354 D of the Indian Penal Code
and under section 12 of the POCSO Act.
Date of filing of the charge sheet : 13.04.2017.
Date of judgment : 27.03.2018.
Date of arguments on sentence : 27.03.2018.
Date of order on sentence : 27.03.2018.
Appearances: Ms. Nimmi Sisodia, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Ms. Shradha Vaid, counsel for Delhi Commission for
Women.
Convict Mr.Sunny @ Siddharth is present on bail.
Mr.Mayank Khurana, counsel for convict.
Mother of the prosecutrix is present.
*********************************************************
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide judgment dated 27.03.2018, accused Mr. Sunny @ Siddharth New Sessions Case Number : 235/2017 Old Sessions Case Number : 76/2017 FIR No.:67/2017 Police Station: Patel Nagar.
Under section 354 D IPC.
and under section 12 of the POCSO Act.
State v.Sunny @ Sidharth -:: Page 8 of 7::-
-:: 8 ::-
has been convicted for having committed offence under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and under section 354 D of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) as on 29.10.2016, he repeatedly or constantly followed or watched the prosecutrix Ms.X (aged 15 years) either directly or any other means and despite a clear indication of disinterest by her, he also told her to marry him in the Court with him and forced her for establishing physical relations with him, which she refused and he instigated her to consume sleeping pills.
2. The inquiry regarding the economic status and paying capacity of accused has been conducted and his statement has been recorded separately today. The Victim Impact Assessment Report has already been received on 01.03.2018.
3. I have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the convict and his counsel on the point of quantum of sentence to be awarded to him and also perused the case record. I have also heard the mother of the prosecutrix.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, assisted by the mother of the prosecutrix, has requested for the maximum sen- tence to be imposed upon the convict Mr.Sunny @ Siddharth as New Sessions Case Number : 235/2017 Old Sessions Case Number : 76/2017 FIR No.:67/2017 Police Station: Patel Nagar.
Under section 354 D IPC.
and under section 12 of the POCSO Act.
State v.Sunny @ Sidharth -:: Page 8 of 7::-
-:: 8 ::-
on 29.10.2016, he repeatedly or constantly followed or watched the prosecutrix Ms.X (aged 15 years) either directly or any other means and despite a clear indication of disinterest by her, he also told her to marry him in the Court with him and forced her for es- tablishing physical relations with him, which she refused and he instigated her to consume sleeping pills. She has further submit- ted that the convict does not deserve any leniency keeping in view the nature of the offence committed by him. The prosecutrix is an unmarried girl, now aged 16 . She had suffered a lot of trauma and was insecure when the offence was committed. She has not under- gone any expenditure for any medical treatment and there has not been any interruption in her education.
5. The convict and his counsel, on the other hand, have requested for a lenient view to be taken against him and for his release on probation as he hails from a poor family. Mr.Sunny@ Siddharth convict, is aged 27 years old. He has studied uptill XII class. He is the sole sole bread winner of my family comprising of his aged father. He is working as an employee in a printing firm and earn Rs.15,000/- per month. He does not have any immoveable property. He does not have any other source of income. He is not involved in any other criminal activity. He has assured that he shall not commit any offence in future.
New Sessions Case Number : 235/2017 Old Sessions Case Number : 76/2017 FIR No.:67/2017 Police Station: Patel Nagar.
Under section 354 D IPC.
and under section 12 of the POCSO Act.
State v.Sunny @ Sidharth -:: Page 8 of 7::-
-:: 8 ::-
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions from both the sides, the circumstances of the convict and perusing the case record, I con- sider it proper to award a substantive sentence upon the convict. However, as he has pleaded guilty, even though at a very belated stage when the matter was listed for evidence, too harsh punish- ment is not required to be imposed upon him. However, keeping in view the nature of the offence committed by the convict, I am not inclined to take a lenient view against him and release him on probation.
7. The object of sentence should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. The Courts are expected to operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
8. Since the offences are overlapping and this is a case under the POCSO Act, the punishment is being given to the convict only under section 12 of the POCSO Act and not under section 354 D of the IPC.
9. Therefore, considering these aggravating facts, I hereby sentence Mr.Sunny @ Siddharth, convict, as follows:
New Sessions Case Number : 235/2017 Old Sessions Case Number : 76/2017 FIR No.:67/2017 Police Station: Patel Nagar. Under section 354 D IPC. and under section 12 of the POCSO Act. State v.Sunny @ Sidharth -:: Page 8 of 7::-
-:: 8 ::-
for the offence under section 12 of the POCSO Act, to simple imprisonment for a period already undergone by him in custody i.e. w.e.f 21.03.2017 to 21.04.2017 granting him benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. and further a fine in the sum of Rupees One Thousand Only in default of payment of which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month is also imposed upon him.
10.Further, a compensation of Rs. One Lakh Only (Rs.1,00,000/ only) is also ordered to be paid to the victim under the POCSO Act and Rules for her relief and rehabilitation. Out of the total amount of Rs.One Lakh, Mr.Sunny @ Siddharth, convict is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the victim. The remaining Rs.70,000/- shall be paid by the State through the DLSA, West.
11.Mr.Sunny @ Siddharth, convict has deposited the fine of Rs.One Thousand only i.e. total fine imposed upon him vide receipt no. 0213887 dated 27.03.2018.
12.Mr.Sunny @ Siddharth, convict has also handed over Rs.Thirty Thousand in cash i.e. the compensation imposed upon him to the New Sessions Case Number : 235/2017 Old Sessions Case Number : 76/2017 FIR No.:67/2017 Police Station: Patel Nagar.
Under section 354 D IPC.
and under section 12 of the POCSO Act.
State v.Sunny @ Sidharth -:: Page 8 of 7::-
-:: 8 ::-
mother of the prosecutrix.
13.Mr.Sunny @ Siddharth, convict, is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal/revision against this judgment and order on sentence. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
14.Copy of the judgment dated 27.03.2018 whereby Mr.Sunny @ Siddharth, convict, has been convicted under section 12 of the POCSO Act and the copy of the order on sentence dated 27.03.2018, as above, duly attested, besides the complete set of copy of the relevant case record, in compliance of directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, be given to Mr.Sunny @ Sid- dharth, convict, free of cost immediately.
15.Copies of the judgment dated 27.03.2018 and the order on sen-
tence dated 27.03.2018 also be given to the Additional Public Prosecutor, as requested.
New Sessions Case Number : 235/2017 Old Sessions Case Number : 76/2017 FIR No.:67/2017 Police Station: Patel Nagar.
Under section 354 D IPC.
and under section 12 of the POCSO Act.
State v.Sunny @ Sidharth -:: Page 8 of 7::-
-:: 8 ::-
16.Copies of the judgment dated 27.03.2018 and the order on sen-
tence dated 27.03.2018 also be given to the mother of the pros- ecutrix , as requested.
17.Copies of the judgment dated 27.03.2018 and the order on sen-
tence dated 27.03.2018 be sent immediately to the learned Secre- tary, DLSA, West for information and compliance regarding the payment of compensation of Rs.70,000/- by the State to the vic- tim.
18.After completion of the formalities and expiry of the period of limitation, the Ahlmad/Junior Judicial Assistant of this Court is di- rected to consign the file to the record room.
NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL SHARMA Date: 2018.04.02 15:34:22 +0530 Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 27th day of March, 2018. Additional Sessions Judge-01, West, Special Court Under The POCSO Act, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
********************************************************* New Sessions Case Number : 235/2017 Old Sessions Case Number : 76/2017 FIR No.:67/2017 Police Station: Patel Nagar.
Under section 354 D IPC.
and under section 12 of the POCSO Act.
State v.Sunny @ Sidharth -:: Page 8 of 7::-