Delhi District Court
S/ vs Sonu Sawarkar Fir No. 58/12 Page No.1 Of ... on 8 January, 2013
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01
PATIALA HOUSE COURT : NEW DELHI
In re:
Session Case No. 22/12
State v. Sonu Sawarkar
FIR No. 58/12
u/S. 354/367/384/34 IPC & 67A and 67B I.T. Act
PS Chanakya Puri
Date of Institution : 23.07.2012
Arguments concluded on : 05.01.2013
Date of judgment : 08.01.2013
JUDGMENT
1.0 Prosecution case is that the accused who lived nearby, allured the minor prosecutrix to a jungle near Madhu Limay Marg, where he molested her by caressing her breasts after making her lie down on the ground; he also forcibly made her unchain his pants and made her suck his penis. He also prepared a video clip of this act on his mobile phone. Subsequently, the accused passed on this video clip to another boy namely Sanju Topo (juvenile), who lived in the S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.1 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 2 ::
neighbourhood at D-1/68, Servant Quarter, Satya Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. The said Sanju Topo (juvenile) told the prosecutrix that accused Sonu passed on her video clip to him and that he would put it on the internet. He also told her that in case she paid him Rs.1500/-, then he will not put it on the net. On which, the prosecutrix expressed her inability to pay such a large amount. Juvenile Sanju Topo then told her that she would have to pay minimum sum of Rs.800/- otherwise, he would put the video clip on the internet. The prosecutrix gave Rs.300/- to Sanju top (Juvenile) out of her savings. But, Sanju Topo (juvenile) told her that same is not sufficient and again threatened her. On which, the prosecutrix stole her mother's tops (earrings) and locket and gave the same to Sanju Topo (juvenile).
1.1 On prosecutrix's parents discovering the said gold articles to be missing, reported the matter to police. During investigation, the prosecutrix revealed the entire facts and that she had handed over her mother's jewellery to Sanju Topo (juvenile). On S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.2 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 3 ::
further investigation juvenile revealed that he had already sold off the said jewellery articles. During further investigation, two mobile phones of make Nokia from the custody of accused Sonu and one mobile phone of make Rokea from Sanju Topo (juvenile) were recovered and seized and the same were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination.
Charge-sheet against accused Sonu Sawarkar u/Ss 367/354/384/34 IPC and u/Ss. 67A and 67B Information Technology Act, 2000 was filed. Sanju Topo being juvenile was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board II, Delhi Gate, Delhi.
2.0 Charge under Sections 367/354 IPC & 384/34 IPC and under Section 67A Information & Technology Act, 2000 (I.T. Act) was framed against the accused Sonu Sawarkar by the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 30.07.2012. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3.0 The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. PW1 is the prosecutrix. PW5 Ms. Mamta Anand, Head S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.3 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 4 ::
Mistress, N. P. Primary Co-Ed School, Tuglak Crescent, New Delhi, and PW6 Maman Singh Rana, Teacher from N. P. Co-Ed Secondary School, Auranjeb Lane, New Delhi, produced the record of date of birth of the prosecutrix. PW3 is WSI Kusum Dhama, who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. PW9 SI K. L. Yadav had accompanied PW3 to the prosecutrix's house. PW11 Inspector Neelmani is the Investigating Officer, to whom the matter was handed over for investigation. PW10 Dr. N. P. Waghmare, Assistant Director, FSL, had examined the mobile phones recovered from the accused and another mobile phone recovered from juvenile. PW2, PW4, PW7 & PW8 are the other police officials.
4.0 The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating material on record. The accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix at the instance of her mother, in order to save her father. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in defence.
5.0 I have heard Ld. Addl. P.P. Shri R.K. Pandey as well S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.4 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 5 ::
as Shri Anoop Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also carefully perused the material placed on record.
6.0 PW1, the prosecutrix, testified (on 17.08.2012) that the accused lived near her house and was known to her; they were friends for last one and a half years. About 2 -3 months back (in her cross examination the prosecutrix specified that this incident happened in March, 2012) at about 01.30 - 2.00 p.m., the accused asked her to accompany him to the jungle where he had kept something. She asked the accused to bring that something but he insisted upon her to accompany him. She has also stated that on reaching the jungle the accused made her lie on the ground and then lifted her shirt; he caressed her chest; he unchained his pant and took out his penis and told her to hold it, but she refused. She also deposed that the accused prepared her film on his mobile phone and when she objected to the same, he told her that nobody touches his mobile phone. PW1 identified herself as well as the accused in video CD Ex.PW1/C and deposed that the act seen in the video was committed by S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.5 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 6 ::
the accused with her on the date of the incident. She also stated that the accused had forcibly put his penis in her mouth and forced her to suck the penis. PW1 has stood by the same in her cross-examination and even stated that they remained in jungle for about half an hour.
6.1 The prosecutrix in her cross-examination also reiterated that her video, as shown in CD Ex.PW1/C was prepared by the accused. It is interesting to note that on one hand, the accused put to prosecutrix in her cross examination that the boy seen in the video Ex.PW1/C, is not the accused which was categorically denied by the prosecutrix. She rather pointed out that pink / red colour locket worn by the accused, is very much visible in the video. No further suggestions in this regard was put to prosecutrix in this regard. On the other hand, the accused suggested to the prosecutrix that she voluntarily indulged in the act seen in video meaning thereby that the accused did not dispute the video and even admitted his presence in the video.
S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.6 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 7 ::
6.2 The prosecutrix's version before this court is further corroborated in material particulars by her statement to the police, i.e. Ex.PW1/A and statement made by her before the Ld. MM, which is Ex.PW1/B. Regarding her video, in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/B, the prosecutrix had stated that the accused had taken her pictures while pretending to be talking to someone on his mobile phone, by putting lead in his ear. 6.2.1 The contents of video CD Ex.PW1/C, also corroborate prosecutrix's version. Said video CD was played in the court, in which the prosecutrix is lying on the ground bare breasted and she is made to hold and suck the penis of the accused; he put his penis in between the breasts of the prosecutrix. In the video the male person is wearing a red colour locket. Video also shows only one hand of the male person, from which it is clear that his other hand was busy in holding the mobile phone making video, which further corroborates the prosecutrix's version of video being prepared by the accused. It is significant to note that the (dark) color of the skin / male hand S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.7 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 8 ::
seen in the video matches with the accused's complexion, which further substantiates prosecutrix's version that the said video was prepared by the accused.
6.2.2 In view of the above, I find no merit in the Ld. defence counsel's argument that the prosecution has failed to prove that the boy in the video is accused, as the face of the boy is not visible in the video.
6.3 It has also come on record (as would be discussed in paras infra) that the video Ex.PW1/C was retrieved from the mobile phone of juvenile, which shows that the accused had transmitted the same to the juvenile.
6.4 The Ld. defence counsel argued that if the accused had done anything with the prosecutrix as alleged, she could have raised alarm while returning from the jungle. But she did not do so; neither did she disclose it to anyone or reported to police for long time; thus, the entire story is concocted. This S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.8 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 9 ::
argument does not lie in the mouth of the accused, who himself suggested to the prosecutrix that she voluntarily indulged in the said act. Even otherwise, it has come on record ( as is discussed in paras infra) that the entire incident was revealed when the prosecutrix's mother found her gold jewellery missing; same explains the delay in reporting of the matter to the police. 6.5 It was also argued on behalf of the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated but nothing has been mentioned as to the motivation on the part of the prosecutrix to do so. It may be mentioned that it was suggested to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination that she has falsely implicated the accused and the juvenile after the juvenile threatened the prosecutrix to spread about her father's misconduct towards her, which was emphatically denied by her. If it was the juvenile, who had threatened to defame the prosecutrix / her father, why did she implicate the accused? No reason has been assigned for implication of the accused by the prosecutrix. Nor could the accused bring out anything S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.9 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 10 ::
in prosecutrix's cross-examination so as to assail her testimony/ to demonstrate the prosecutrix's motive behind his false implication.
7.0 PW1 / prosecutrix has further deposed that after return from the jungle she had met juvenile, who lives near her house; the juvenile demanded Rs.1500/- from her for deleting her film, from the internet; she told him that she did not have that much of money but agreed to pay Rs.800/-; she gave him Rs.300/- but could not pay the balance; for the said purpose she gave her mother's gold pendent and a pair of gold earrings to the juvenile. It has also come in the prosecutrix's testimony that her parents discovered about the missing gold articles after one or two days and initially she told that she had given the same to a girl in the school but when her mother alongwith her maternal grand mother visited her school to trace that girl, she got scared and told them that she had given the same to the juvenile for deleting her video from the internet. PW1 in her cross- examination has stood by the same and even explained that the S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.10 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 11 ::
juvenile had met her about one week after the incident; he had asked for money when she was going to Mother Dairy. PW1's deposition is corroborated by her statement under Section 161 Cr.PC (Ex.PW1/A) as well as under Section 164 Cr.PC (Ex.PW1/B). In Ex.PW1/B, the prosecutrix has even explained that she had paid Rs.300/- to the juvenile by way of Rs.100/-, 50/-, 100/-, 50/-.
7.1 PW1's version that she had taken(stolen) her mother's jewellery articles and given to the juvenile, is further substantiated by PW4 / Ex.PW4/A. Ex.PW4/A is DD no. 11A recorded at 03.28 p.m. on 03.05.2012, which mentions that an information has been received from Ct. Neeraj - 3002/PCR about theft in D-1/63, Satya Marg. It has also come in the testimony of PW4 HC Raghubir Singh that on receipt of the said PCR call he alongwith Ct. Pramod had visited the said address, where they met a young girl of 14 - 15 years / prosecutrix and her parents.
But, on inquiry it was found that actually it was not a matter of theft but of molestation, sexual abuse, blackmailing and extortion of the S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.11 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 12 ::
prosecutrix, on which PW4 immediately reported the matter to the senior officers and requested for deputing some lady officer. After some time PW3 WSI Kusum Dhama and PW9 SI K. L. Yadav had reached the given address and made further inquiries with the prosecutrix. PW4 in his cross-examination also has categorically stated that the call was received from the mother of the girl but on reaching the given address, on inquiry, the prosecutrix's mother told that her own daughter had given her jewellery to the juvenile, who actually extorted the same from her. Nothing worth-while was put to PW4 in his cross- examination to assail his testimony.
8.0 The above and the fact that during further investigations mobile phones were recovered from accused and juvenile and prosecutrix's obscene video was retrieved, etc. is further substantiated by the testimony of other witnesses - PW3 W/SI Kusum Dhama, PW9 SI K. L. Yadav and PW11 Inspector Neel Mani.
S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.12 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 13 ::
8.1 It has come in the testimony of PW3 Woman S.I. Kusum Dhama that on 03.05.2012, DD No. 14A, (Ex.PW3/A) was assigned to her for action. On which, she along with PW9 SI K. L. Yadav had reached the house no. D-63, Satya Marg, where prosecutrix was present along with her parents. After recording the statement of the prosecutrix (Ex.PW1/A) she recorded the rukka Ex.PW3/B and requested to assign the matter to some woman Inspector as matter appeared to be pertaining to IT Act. 8.2 PW11 Woman Inspector Neelmani (I.O.)has deposed that on 03.05.2012, at about 04.00 p.m. when she was in her office at police station Mandir Marg, she received telephonic message from SHO PS Chanakya Puri with the direction to reach PS Chanakya Puri as the case pertaining to teasing and IT Act etc. had come to notice at Satya Marg area. Accordingly, she reached at PS Chanakya Puri at about 4.45 pm. In PS Chanakya Puri, she received copy of FIR No. 58/12 and original rukka from duty officer and came to know that a case under sec 354/384/34 IPC and 67A and 67B of I.T Act had been registered.
S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.13 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 14 ::
8.2.1 PW11 has further deposed that she then proceeded to Flat no. D1/63, Servant Quarters,Satya Marg, New Delhi, where prosecutrix and her parents were present. After making inquiries, she along with PW9 SI K. L. Yadav, and prosecutrix & her mother reached at D-1/68, Vinay Marg, where juvenile and his parents were present. On inquiries, the juvenile took out his white coloured mobile phone, make "Rokea" from his pocket and on her directions, he showed her on the screen of his mobile, the clipping as was narrated by the prosecutrix. She recognised the face of prosecutrix on the screen of mobile phone; she observed obscenity in the mobile clipping including the male organ being sucked by the prosecutrix. On her questioning, the juvenile admitted that the said mobile clipping was transferred to him by accused Sonu Sawarkar as they were friends. She has also deposed that after noting the IMEI number, she had seized the said mobile phone vide Ex.PW9/A, in the presence of juvenile's father.
8.2.2 PW11 has further deposed that thereafter, they had S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.14 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 15 ::
returned to the spot. Accused was also seen there and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/C at the instance of prosecutrix. PW11 identified the accused in the court. PW11 also deposed that accused was carrying two mobile phones make Nokia, one was of black colour another was of white colour. On enquiry, the accused told that he had deleted video clipping from his mobile phones; she checked and IMEI number of both the sets; and seized the mobile phones after converting them into a cloth parcel and had affixed her seal NLM over the parcels and took the same in possession vide memo Ex PW9/B; thereafter, she deposited the parcel/case property in malkhana. 8.2.3 PW11's testimony is further corroborated by PW9 SI K. L. Yadav, who accompanied her during investigations and in whose presence PW11 had seized the mobile phone/s. Seizure of mobile phones from Juvenile and accused, vide Ex. PW9/A and Ex.
PW9/B, respectively is not disputed, as Ld. defence counsel himself suggested to PW9 in cross- examination that all the three mobile phones were seized in S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.15 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 16 ::
his presence. PW-9 even identified the said phones in Court. Further, Ex. PW9/A, seizure memo of phone Rokea Model R9100 (made in china, having two IMEI numbers 911213100510004/911213100510012) recovered from Juvenile, also corroborates PW11's version that it was seized from the juvenile in his father's presence, as it bears the signatures of Bhushan Topo, the father of the Juvenile.
PW11 as well as PW9 have stood by their testimony in their cross-examination. Nothing worthwhile was put to them to shake their credibility.
8.3 PW11's version that on 03.05.2012, she had deposited the mobile phones in malkhana in sealed condition is also corroborated by PW7 Malkhana Moharar HC Bhupender.
PW7 has deposed that deposit of sealed pullandas containing mobile phone on 03.05.2012 was recorded vide entry at Serial No. 961/12 in register No. 19, which is Ex.PW7/A. He has also deposed that on 28.05.2012 he had handed over the said parcels to SI Virender Singh vide RC No. 31/12 for depositing the same at S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.16 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 17 ::
FSL; the parcels were deposited with FSL on the same day and its deposit receipt was handed over to him by SI Virender. He has further deposed that on 19.09.2012, HC Subhash handed over the sealed envelope containing exhibits along with the result obtained from FSL; the result was handed over by him to the PW11, IO Inspector Neelmani. He had made entry in this regard in front of Entry No. 961 in Malkhana Register. He also deposed that case property remained intact in his possession and has stood by the same in his cross-examination. 8.3.1 The PW2 SI Virender Singh has corroborated that on 28.05.2012, after obtaining the parcels from Malkhana, PS Chanakya Puri, he deposited the same with FSL, Rohini, on the directions of PS Chanakya Puri; and that the said exhibits remained intact as long as the same were in his custody. PW2 has stood by the same in his cross-examination. Nothing has come on record to suggest tempering of mobile phones recovered from juvenile and accused till they were deposited with FSL, Rohini for analysis and even thereafter.
S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.17 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 18 ::
8.4 Same is further substantiated vide testimony of PW10 Dr. N. O. Waghmare, Assistant Director, FSL. PW10 has also testified that on 28.05.2012 he had received two sealed parcels in connection with FIR No. 58/12, PS Chanakya Puri, at FSL, Rohini; the parcels were sealed with the seal of NML, as per the enclosed specimen.
8.5 PW10 also testified that he had examined all the three mobile phones and proved his report on record i.e. Ex.PW10/A; he testified as to the details mentioned therein.
PW10 deposed that Nokia Mobile C5-05 IMEI No:
358300/04/228712/0 (with Reliance SIM card bearing no. :
8991053 35000010243) (recovered from accused) was marked by him as Ex.SC1; memory card of that phone was marked Ex.MC1 and mobile phone as Ex.MP1. Another mobile phone (recovered from accused) Nokia 5233 bearing IMEI No. 354850/04/576053/5, its SIM card was marked as Ext. SC-2, its memory card as Ex. MC2 & mobile phone as Ex.MP2. In second parcel there was one Rokea R 9100 mobile phone set made in S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.18 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 19 ::
China bearing IMEI No. 911213100510004 / 911213100510012; it was found containing one Micro SD memory card of 4 GB, which was marked by him as Ex.MC3 and the said mobile phone set was marked for identification as Ex.MP3; that after examining the said phones, he furnished following results:- "1)The memory cards marked MC1 to MC3 were forensically imaged using validated Encase software. On analysis of imaged storage data by authorized software and hardware tools as per the Cardinal Rule of Computer Forensics, the relevant video is found in the memory card marked Ex. MC3 of Rokea mobile phone Ex. MP3 and few video clips are given in the hard copies vide annexure "A" (2 pages). The complete retrieved related video is also given in CD-R.
2)The SIM cards of Ex. SC1 to SC2 are not able to attached to UFED device. Hence, no data could be retrieved from them.
3)The mobile phones Ex. MP1 to MP3 are not able to attached to UFED device. Hence, no data could be retrieved from them."
8.5.1 PW10 even identified the mobile phones before the court, as the same which were examined by him and which were given above identification marks by him. He also deposed that exhibits under examination were resealed with the seal of S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.19 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 20 ::
FSL NPW Delhi. The said mobile phones were found intact with seal of FSL.
8.5.2 PW10 also proved hard copies of few video clips found in memory card, MC3 of mobile phone Rokea, Marked as MP3, which were exhibited as Ex.PW10/C & Ex.PW10/D, and the video CD prepared by him which is Ex.PW1/C. The contents of video CD Ex.PW1/C have already been discussed in para 6.2 (supra).
8.6 In view of the above, it is established that the obscene video of the prosecutrix was found in the Rokea mobile phone seized from the custody of juvenile. 8.7 The Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that PW10 in his cross-examination has admitted that he cannot say with certainty whether the video clip retrieved from (juvenile's) mobile phone Rokea (Ex.P1) was shot with the same or was received in the said phone by way of transfer. It is noted that S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.20 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 21 ::
PW-10 in his cross-examination stated that the said fact cannot be stated with certainty in view of the mobile phone sets being incompatible with Universal Forensic Extraction Device available in their laboratory. The said argument is stated only to be rejected, in view of the oral testimony of the prosecutrix and findings, as recorded in preceding paras from which it is established that video of the prosecutrix was prepared by the accused with his mobile phone. Further, in view of the above facts and circumstances and the material on record it is evident that the same was transmitted by the accused to the juvenile. 8.8 In view of the above, I find no force even in the argument advanced by Ld. defence counsel that in absence of any proof of mode of transmission i.e. through bluetooth etc., the prosecution has failed to prove that the obscene video was transmitted by the accused to the juvenile. 9.0 The fact that prosecutrix is minor has been proved by the school record produced by PW5 Ms. Mamta Anand, Head S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.21 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 22 ::
Mistress, N. P. Primary Co-Ed School and PW6 Maman Singh Rana, Physical Teacher, N. P. Co-Ed Secondary School. PW5 deposed that the prosecutrix was admitted to their school in class fifth on 09.07.2009 vide Admission No. 3431. Prosecutrix's father had disclosed the prosecutrix's date of birth as 13.07.1998 and had even filed an affidavit in that regard. PW5 produced original school record and placed on record the photocopy of the admission form and prosecutrix's father's affidavit regarding date of bith, which are Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B, respectively. She also produced admission register, the relevant entry pertaining to prosecutrix in the admission register of the school is Ex.PW5/C. In cross-examination, PW5 further clarified that the prosecutrix was studying in their school even earlier in class third, but had left the schooling in between.
She again took admission in class fifth in 2009; at the time of her initial admission in class third also, similar affidavit with respect to prosecutrix's date of birth was furnished. Copy of which was produced as Ex.PW5/DA.
S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.22 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 23 ::
9.1 PW6 also deposed that the prosecutrix had taken admission in their school in class sixth on 07.04.2010 vide Admission No. 9555, (copy of which is Ex.PW6/A) on the basis of transfer certificate issued by N. P. Primary Co-Ed School, Tughlak Cresent, New Delhi. Copy of the transfer certificate is Ex.PW6/B, which mentions date of birth of the prosecutrix on 13.07.1998. 9.2 The Ld. counsel for the accused cross-examined PW5 as well as PW6 but, failed to bring out anything to assail their testimony / genuineness of the record. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the prosecutrix's father whereby her date of birth was disclosed to be 13.07.1998, at the time of her school admission.
9.3 It may also be mentioned that the prosecutrix was also got medically examined for the purpose of age determination. Ex. PW11/H, the bone age report furnished by the Medical Board (consisting of Radiologist, Dentist, Physician and Chairperson - MD (Radio - Diagnosis)) of Din Dayal Upadhyay S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.23 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 24 ::
Hospital, Government of NCT of Delhi, was not disputed by the accused ( as is recorded in the cross examination of PW11/Investigating Officer) As per the same, the prosecutrix's age was opined to be 14 to 16 years.
9.4 It is, therefore, established that the prosecutrix's age at the time of incident was 14 years approximately. Thus, the prosecutrix was minor as on that date.
10.0 From the above evidence on record, it is established that on the asking / persuation of the accused, the minor prosecutrix had accompanied him to the jungle. The fact that when the accused took the prosecutrix to jungle, there was no-
one at her home, has also come in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. In the jungle, the accused made prosecutrix bare her breasts; he made her hold his penis and suck the same; he put his penis in between the breasts of the prosecutrix. The accused with his mobile phone, had even prepared prosecutrix's video in that state, without her consent. The accused's suggestion to the prosecutrix in her cross- examination that she S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.24 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 25 ::
voluntarily indulged in the said act, is of no consequence, the prosecutrix being minor.
10.1 Thus, the accused took the minor prosecutrix to jungle out of the keeping of her parents without their consent and even subjected the prosecutrix to his unnatural lust by his act especially by putting his penis in her mouth and making her suck the same.
10.2 The accused not only prepared the video clip of the prosecutrix in that state but in his voyeuristic pursuit, he also transmitted the said obscene video clip to the juvenile. He exploited the vulnerability of an innocent minor girl by sharing her obscene video with juvenile thus exposing her body to public eye, breaching the dignity, privacy and shame of the minor girl. He thus, outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix. 10.3 From the evidence on record, it also stands established that the accused had transmitted the obscene video to the juvenile in furtherance of common intention to blackmail S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.25 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 26 ::
the prosecutrix and extort money from her. It is also established that the juvenile extorted from the prosecutrix, a sum of Rs. 300/- and gold tops (earrings) & locket of her mother, in lieu of the balance amount by threatening her to put her obscene video clip on the internet.
11.0 In view of the above, I find the accused Sonu Sawarkar guilty of offences punishable u/Ss 367 IPC, 354 IPC and u/s. 67A I. T. Act and also the offence punishable u/S. 384 read with Sec. 34 IPC in case FIR no. 58/12 PS Chanakya Puri. 11.1 The accused is convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open (POONAM A. BAMBA )
Court on 08.01.2013 Addl.Sessions Judge-01
Patiala House Court
New Delhi
S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.26 of 30
PS Chanakya Puri
:: 27 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 : NEW DELHI In re :
Session Case No. 22/12
State versus Sonu Sawarkar Son of Shri Ramesh Kumar Sawarkar R/o D-II/245, Servant Quarters Vinay Marg, Chanakya Puri New Delhi FIR No. 58/12 Police Station Chanakya Puri Under Sec. 354/367/384/ 34 IPC & 67A I.T. Act ORDER ON SENTENCE 1.0 Ld. counsel for the convict submitted that the accused is a young boy of 21 years; he was student of class 11th and his education has been disrupted because of present case; he has parents and younger brother in family. He has never been involved in any S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.27 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 28 ::
offence earlier. In view of the same he be released on probation.
2.0 On the other hand, ld Addl. PP submitted that the convict is guilty of serious offence. The method adopted by the convict was against all the norms of decency and morality. He deserves the maximum punishment 3.0 I have duly considered the submissions made by both the sides and have considered the record. The convict has been found guilty not only of outraging the modesty of the minor prosecutrix but also of transmitting the obscene video to the juvenile; they then blackmailed the prosecutrix and extorted money/jewellery in lieu of money from her. There is a rise in such offences in the society, which need to be dealt with a heavy hand. Such exposure of a vulnerable minor girl not only hurt her dignity and modesty but also leave an indelible mark on her psyche.
4.0 In view of the above facts and circumstances, keeping in mind the nature of offence S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.28 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 29 ::
and taking into account the age of the convict, his background and that he is stated to have no prior criminal record, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice shall be met by the following sentences:
i) rigorous imprisonment of 04 years and fine of Rs.5000/- under Sec. 367 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months; and
ii) rigorous imprisonment of 02 years under Section 354 IPC ; and
iii) rigorous imprisonment of 03 years under Section 384 IPC; and
iv) rigorous imprisonment of 04 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 67A of The Information Technology Act,2000. In default of payment of fine convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months.
4.1 The convict is sentenced accordingly. 5.0 All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C be given to convict. S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.29 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri :: 30 ::
6.0 Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open ( POONAM A. BAMBA ) court on 10.01.2013 Addl. Sessions Judge S/vs Sonu Sawarkar FIR No. 58/12 page no.30 of 30 PS Chanakya Puri