Delhi District Court
State vs . Sachin Kumar on 6 August, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 11/12)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0010712012
State Vs. Sachin Kumar
FIR No. : 345/11
U/s : 376/511 IPC
P.S. : Aman Vihar
State Vs. Sachin Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Narain Bhagat,
R/o J321, Prem Nagar,
Village Majawaliya, PS Ashava,
Distt. Seewan, Bihar.
Date of institution of case 05.01.2012
Date on which, judgment has been reserved03.08.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment 03.08.2013
JUDGMENT:
1 Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 09.11.2011 Smt. Seenu, complainant went to PP Prem Nagar and met PW13 ASI Chand Singh and Ct. Sukhbir and informed them that someone had committed rape upon her daughter aged about 2 years. The PW13 called for lady Ct. Versha and he along with Ct. Sukhbir, Ct. Versha and Smt. Sheenu went to SGM Hospital for medical examination of the prosecutrix.
SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 1 of 19 2 After medical examination, the concerned doctor handed over the MLC of the prosecutrix to the IO. She also handed over one sexual assault kit along with sample seal to IO which was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW13/A. The PW13 went with the victim child and her mother Smt. Seenu to the spot. He recorded statement of complainant Smt. Seenu vide Ex.PW3/A, in presence of Smt. Anuradha, NGO; made endorsement thereupon vide Ex.PW3/B and sent it through Ct. Sukhbir for registration of the case. The PW13 also prepared site plan Ex.PW13/C at the instance of complainant. When Ct. Sukhbir returned with rukka and copy of FIR, IO commenced search for the accused, however, accused could not be found and so after recording statement of witnesses, IO returned back to police post. The accused was apprehended on the night intervening 09 / 10.11.2011 at about 1:00 midnight from his tenanted room by the IO on receiving of secret information that accused would come to his house to collect his luggage. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW9/B, in presence of the complainant. The disclosure statement of accused was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW9/C. On 10.11.2011 accused was got medically examined at SGM Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW10/A and the samples taken from accused were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/D. During the course of investigations, case property was sent to FSL. After completing investigations charge sheet in the case was prepared and filed in the Court for trial. 2 Upon committal of this case to the court of Sessions, charges for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC was framed against the accused Sachin. However, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 2 of 19
3
3 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses.
4 The PW3, Smt. Seenu, is the complainant as well as mother of the victim
child. As per the prosecution case she had reached the place of incident i.e. room of the accused and seen accused attempting to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. Her testimony shall be discussed at length in the following paragraphs of the judgment. 5 The PW2, Ms. Renu @ Raimu, is the sister of PW3 Smt. Seenu and she too deposed about the factum of complainant having come to her house on the day of incident to fetch water. However, her remaining testimony is confined to what was told to her by PW3 about the incident. She also deposed about going to police post and hospital with PW3 and apprehension of the accused.
6 During her crossexamination, PW3 admitted that she had not witnessed the incident herself and that she had deposed regarding the incident based on what was told to her by her sister.
7 The PW1, Smt. Anuradha, Counselor, Nav Srishti NGO, who was called to the spot to counsel the mother of the prosecutrix and she too has deposed about the incident as narrated to her by the complainant which was also admitted by the witness during her crossexamination conducted by learned counsel for the accused.
8 The PW10, Dr. M.Dass, CMO, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, had
SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 3 of 19
4
conducted the medical examination of accused on 10.11.2011 and given opinion regarding his sexual capability. He proved the MLC of accused as Ex.PW10/A and stated that there was nothing to suggest that the patient was incapable of performing sexual intercourse.
9 The PW13, ASI Chand Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case and he deposed about the investigations carried out by him and the documents prepared by him during the course of investigations.
10 During his crossexamination, the PW13 deposed that no PCR call was made regarding this incident on 09.11.2011 and that complainant met him on the way when he was coming back to PP after attending the call on DD No.17 PP and that he along with complainant and prosecutrix came back to Police Post and thereafter took the prosecutrix along with lady Constable Versha and complainant Smt. Seenu to SGM Hospital for medical examination of prosecutrix and that he informed the SHO regarding this incident on phone but he did not make a separate departure entry for leaving the PP as he was already on the call of DD No.17 PP. He further deposed that they returned to PP from SGM Hospital at about 6:00 PM and thereafter statement of complainant Seenu was recorded at the house of her sister, who is residing at some distance from her house, and then Ct. Sukhbir took the rukka to PS Aman Vihar at about 8:15 PM and that he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Seenu while sitting at the spot i.e. J321, Prem NagarII, Delhi. He then deposed that accused was arrested on the intervening night of 09 / 10.11.2011 at about 1:45 midnight from his house at the instance of complainant and that he had taken the personal search of accused at the SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 4 of 19 5 spot i.e house of the accused and recorded disclosure statement of accused at the spot after his arrest. He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted proper and fair investigations in this case and that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case by him.
11 The PW9, Ct. Sukhbir Singh, had joined investigations of the case with the IO and deposed on the lines of the IO. He also proved his signatures on various memos on which he had signed as witness.
12 The PW7, Lady Ct. Versha Rani, had joined investigations at the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix and deposed regarding the same. 13 The PW8, Ct. Anil Kumar, had got the accused medically examined at SGM Hospital on 10.11.2011 at the instructions of the IO and deposed regarding the same. 14 The PW6, Ct. Manmohan Singh, had taken the exhibits of the present case to FSL and deposited the same there vide RC No.175/21/11 on 29.11.2011 and deposed regarding the same.
15 The PW12, HC Ami Lal, was posted as MHCM at the relevant time. He produced register No.19 and proved the relevant entries as Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B respectively. He also deposed about sending of exhibits to FSL on 29.11.2011 and produced the original RC register and receipt of FSL and copies thereof were placed on record and proved as Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW10/E respectively.
SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 5 of 19
6
16 The PW4, HC Hardev Singh, is the duty officer. He deposed that on
09.11.2011 at about 8:35 PM, he received a rukka from ASI Chand Singh and on the basis of that rukka, he got recorded the FIR No.345/11 u/s.376/511 IPC on computer operator and after registration of the case, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Sukhbir for further handing over the same to ASI Chand Singh for further investigation. He proved computerized copy of FIR and endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively.
17 After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Sachin Kumar was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused stated that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of mother of the prosecutrix and that he had nothing to do with the alleged offence. He further stated that the complainant and his parents were residing in the same house as a tenant but the husband of the complainant was a habitual drinker, who picked up quarrels and abused the neighbours and co tenant, including his parents, and that due to this reason, the complainant was having enmity towards his parents and that complainant was adamant towards him and his family members. He then deposed that on 09.11.2011 at about 8:00 AM, when he was going to take bath and had tied a towel on his waist and was passing through the veranda, he saw that a child was weeping outside the room near the ladders, he took the child in his lap and sat on a chair and started to play to make the child happy and that suddenly the legs of the child touched his male organ and his male organ erected and ejaculated and that thereafter suddenly the complainant reached at the place of incident and took imaginary perception and that complainant started shouting upon him without SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 6 of 19 7 any rhyme and reason and that he tried to make her understand that her perception was wrong but she did not hear him and made a call to the police and lodged a false case against him. The accused said that he wanted to lead evidence in his defence but later on 19.07.2013 counsel for accused stated that accused did not want to lead any evidence in his defence, hence, matter was fixed for final arguments. 18 Arguments have been addressed by learned counsel for the accused as well as learned Additional PP for the State.
19 Learned Additional PP has contended that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that from the testimony of PW3 Smt. Seenu prosecution has established that accused had taken a minor victim child to his room, while complainant had gone to fetch water, and that he had attempted to rape her and was found in the process of attempting to rape the child by the complainant. It is further stated that FSL result duly corroborates the testimony of PW3 and in view of the same, it is prayed that accused be held guilty of offence of attempt to commit rape upon a minor two years old child and be convicted u/s.376/511 IPC.
20 Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand has contended that accused has been falsely implicated in the case and that on the day of incident, accused was going to have bath when he heard the victim child crying and he picked her up to only to console her and to make her happy and that in the meantime the legs of the child touched his male organ and his male organ erected and ejaculated and that suddenly SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 7 of 19 8 the complainant reached at the place of incident and took imaginary perception and that complainant started shouting upon accused without any rhyme and reason. It is accordingly, prayed that accused be acquitted of all charges in the present case. He has relied upon following judgments, in support of his arguments : 1 Ramkripal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 (2) RCR (Cri.) 2 Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (1) RCR (Cri.) 350 3 Koppula Venkat Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 1874 4 Rajbir Singh @ Raja Vs. State of Haryana, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2008 (3) RCR (Cri.) 215 5 Manoj Vs. State of Haryana, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2008(3) RCR (Cri.) 573 6 Raghbir Singh alias Nadar Vs. State of Haryana, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2008 (1) RCR (Cri.) 623.
7 Aman Kumar & Another Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1497. 21 I have heard the arguments put forward by ld. Addl. PP and learned counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have also carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. 22 In the present case the accused is alleged to have attempted to commit rape upon a small child aged about two years. As far as the presence of accused and the victim child, in the room of the accused, at the time of incident, is concerned the same stands proved by the prosecution from the testimony of PW3 Smt. Seenu, mother of the SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 8 of 19 9 victim child and the accused too has admitted so in the defence taken by him while crossexamining PW3 and in his statement u/s.313 CrPC. The manner in which complainant perceived presence of accused with the victim child and leveled allegations of attempt to rape against him is the moot question in the instant case. While the prosecution alleges that at the time of incident, accused had not only carried the victim child to his room but had also switched on television at loud volume to prevent the cries of child from being heard and had further undressed himself and was lying on the floor and had made the victim child sit on top of him when discovered by the complainant, the defence version is that at that time accused was going to have bath and on seeing the victim child weeping, he picked her up and tried to placate her and in this process, he sat with her on the chair and all of a sudden the legs of the child touched his male organ and his male organ erected and ejaculated and that suddenly thereafter the complainant reached at the place of incident and took imaginary perception. The rival version of the incident given by the prosecution and the defence has to be examined in the light of evidence that has come on record to find out which of the two versions is correct. 23 In order to prove that accused had attempted to rape the minor child the prosecution is relying upon the sole testimony of PW3 Smt. Seenu, mother of the victim child, who deposed that on 09.11.2011 at about 11:00 - 11:30 AM, she had gone to house of her sister Renu @ Raimu to bring water and that at that time she left her two years old daughter alone in the house. She further deposed that she was having one more son and daughter and that her son, who was aged about 5 years, had gone to school while her daughter, twin of the prosecutrix, was staying in village with her mother inlaw. She further deposed that when she returned back after 10 - 15 minutes, she SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 9 of 19 10 heard her daughter crying from nearby room where accused Sachin, who was duly identified by PW3 in the Court, was residing as a tenant and that the door of the said room was partly open and that television was also switched on at a loud volume so that the voice of her daughter could not be overheard by other tenants. The PW3 then deposed that she saw that accused had pulled down his pant and was lying on the floor and had made her daughter sit on his top. On seeing PW3, accused put daughter of PW3 on one side and ran away from there. The PW3 saw some sticky substance on the panty of her daughter. She took prosecutrix in her lap and went to her sister's house and from there, she went with her sister and met the IO. The PW3 further deposed about the medical examination of the prosecutrix and recording of her complaint Ex.PW3/A upon return from the hospital. She also deposed about the manner in which accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/B and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW3/C by the IO in her presence. The case property i.e. the clothes of the prosecutrix were shown to the witness and she identified the said clothes i.e. one panty, one baniyan and one frock as Ex.P1 (colly).
24 During her crossexamination, PW3 stated that her sister's house was situated in gali opposite to her house after two houses. She denied the suggestion that accused Sachin was residing on the ground floor of the house with his father. She volunteered to state that father of the accused was residing in a room on the ground floor while accused was residing in a room on the floor where PW3 was residing as a tenant. During her further crossexamination, PW3 stated that there was one latrine and one bathroom on the first floor which was used by all the tenants, however, she denied the suggestion that there were frequent quarrels between the tenants on the issue of using SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 10 of 19 11 bathroom and toilet due to which she had falsely implicated the accused in the case. The PW3 also stated that when she had left her house, her daughter was sitting and playing in the room and that she did not ask any person to take care of her daughter when she went to fetch water and that when she found her daughter sitting on top of the accused she was wearing her clothes. The PW3 denied that when she saw her daughter on top of the accused, the accused had a towel wrapped on his waist and that he was also wearing an underwear. The PW3 volunteered to state that accused had neither wearing any underwear nor a toilet on his private part. The PW3 also denied that on the day of the incident, accused was going for a bath or that on hearing her daughter cry, he went to pacify and comfort her or that as the accused was making effort to stop her daughter (of PW3) from crying, the PW3 reached there and made false allegations against the accused. The PW3 denied that no incident as stated by her had taken place.
25 Besides PW3, the prosecution has also examined PW11 Dr. Shamistha Garg, SR, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, who deposed that she was deputed in place of Dr. Asha, who had examined the victim child on 09.11.2011. She proved the MLC of the victim child as Ex.PW11/A by identifying handwriting and signatures of Dr. Asha thereupon. She also stated that as per MLC there was no external injury observed on the patient and that her hymen was also found intact.
26 Further the exhibits collected from the victim child and the accused as well as samples collected from them were sent to FSL and were examined by PW5 Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra. He proved the report of biological examination as Ex.PW5/A SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 11 of 19 12 wherein besides other findings, he had opined that human semen was detected on exhibits 1a(i) i.e. one baby's frock, exhibit 1a(iii) i.e. one baby's underwear, exhibit 3 i.e. one underwear and exhibit 4 i.e. damp foul smelling yellowish gauze cloth piece described as 'semen in gauze of accused'. He also proved the report of serological examination as Ex.PW5/B. 27 Though on behalf of accused, it is contended that he had picked up the victim child in his lap to console her and to stop her from crying and that at that time he was going for bath and was clad in towel and underwear and that when the legs of the small child touched his male organ, the same erected and ejaculated, the said plea does not generate any confidence, more particularly in light of the report Ex.PW5/A given by PW5 Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra, who gave finding of human semen on the clothes of the victim child i.e. her frock and underwear. Had accused been wearing his underwear and towel as claimed by him, and also suggested by him during crossexamination of PW3 Smt. Seenu, then there would have been no possibility of semen being ejaculated on to the clothes of the victim child. Similarly, the fact brought out from crossexamination of PW3, that when she found her daughter sitting on top of the accused, she was wearing her clothes, is not of much consequence, as accused had already completed his attempt by then, as is clear from findings given by PW5 Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra. The only conclusion that can be drawn in these circumstances is that the situation perceived and narrated by PW3 Smt. Seenu is the correct version of the incident and that on the day of incident, accused had taken the victim child to his room with lustful intention and the victim child started crying due to gropping of her body by the accused and uncomfortable contact of body of accused with her body. Further in order to smother the cries of the SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 12 of 19 13 child, the accused had turned up the volume of his television. But for the timely arrival of the mother of the victim child, acts of accused may have resulted in ugly bodily harm to the victim child, who was so vulnerable because of her age that she could not even have resisted him or related or narrated about the incident to anyone. 28 Learned counsel for accused has contended that the acts of accused do not fall within the definition of attempt as mere intention to commit an offence not followed by any act is not an offence. He has relied upon judgment in case of Ramkripal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 (2) RCR (Cri.), however, the said judgment rather supports the findings of the Court that the act of the accused was not limited to mere intention but his intention was followed by acts which, if successful, would have resulted in an offence. In the said judgment, it has been held that : "A culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence ; he fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. The word 'attempt' is not itself defined, and must, SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 13 of 19 14 therefore, be taken in its ordinary meaning. This is exactly what the provisions of Section 511 require. An attempt to commit a crime is to be distinguished from an intention to commit it ; and from preparation made for its commission. Mere intention to commit an offence, not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence. The will is not to be taken for the deed unless there be some external act which shows that progress has been made in the direction of it, or towards maturing and effecting it. Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen upon considering the motives which suggest the choice. Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence. It differs widely from attempt which is the direct movement towards the commission after preparations are made. Preparation to commit an offence is punishable only when the preparation is to commit offences under Section 122 (waging war against the Government of India) and Section 399 (preparation to commit dacoity). The dividing line between a mere preparation and an attempt is sometimes thin and has to be decided on the facts of each case. There is a greater degree of determination in attempt as compared with preparation." 29 It has been further held in this judgment that : "the sine qua non of the offence of rap is penetration, and not SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 14 of 19 15 ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape.
The abovementioned observations were given by the Hon'ble Apex Court while deposing off an appeal filed against conviction of accused for offence u/s.376 of IPC.
30 Similarly, in case of Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (1) RCR (Cri.) 350, the accused came in the dead of the night from his bed, in naked condition, wearing only a towel and lifted the prosecutrix and took her to his bed, made her nude, gagged her mouth to prevent her speech. The accused was held guilty of attempt to commit rape by observing as under : " Before completion of the crime, the human mind has to pass through four steps i.e. ( i ) intention to commit ;
( ii ) preparation to commit it ;
( iii ) Attempt to commit it ; and ( iv ) if the attempt is successful then crime is complete.
If the offender fails in his attempt, then crime is not complete but the law punishes those who make attempt but if the attempt is failed by the intervention from the outside or from other circumstances then the offence is not complete. Section 511 IPC is a general provision dealing with attempts to commit offences not SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 15 of 19 16 made punishable by other specific sections. It makes punishable all attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment and not only those punishable with death. The wisdom behind the enactment of Section 511 IPC was that the injury and the moral guilt of the offender was the same as if he had succeeded in committing the offence. The moral guilt must be united with the injury in order to justify the punishment. Mere intention to commit an offence not followed by any act cannot constitute an offence. Attempting to commit an offence is an act or a series of act which lead inevitably to the commission of the offences unless something which the doer of the act neither foresaw nor intended, happens to prevent this. If the accused having criminal designs take some steps towards the commission of the crime and fell short of its actual consummation, then he can certainly be said to have attempted to commit the crime. In order to find out if the accused was really guilty of attempting to commit rape, the court must satisfy its conscience from the words "womanly propriety of behaviour scrupulous chasity of thought speech and conduct". Similarly, the Court is also to examine the real intention of the accused, steps taken towards the commission of the said Act. In the present case, the accused in the dead of night came from his bed in naked condition and wearing only a towel, lifted the prosecutrix and took her to his bed, made her nude, gagged her mouth to prevent her speech thus, indecent assault which often magnifies into attempts SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 16 of 19 17 at rape. Sufficient material exists on the record in order to come to a conclusion that the conduct of the accused was indicative of a determination to gratify his passion at all events. Had the prosecutrix not raised hue and cry, the accused would have succeeded in his evil design".
31 Similar observations have been made in case of Aman Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1497, also relied upon by learned counsel for accused. 32 In case of Koppula Venkat Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 1874, while distinguishing between the attempt to rape and the offence of rape, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that sina qua non of offence of rape is penetration and not ejaculation and in the facts of the case altered the conviction for offence u/s.376 (2) IPC to attempt to rape.
33 In case of Rajbir Singh @ Raja Vs. State of Haryana, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2008 (3) RCR (Cri.) 215, the accused had not unclothed himself when help came and hence, it was held that offence u/s.376/511 IPC was not made out and only offence u/s. 354 IPC was made out.
34 In case of Manoj Vs. State of Haryana, Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2008(3) RCR (Cri.) 573, the accused inserted his fingers into the vagina of prosecutrix forcibly and caused damage. It was held that offence u/s.354 IPC was made out.
SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 17 of 19
18
35 In case of Raghbir Singh alias Nadar Vs. State of Haryana, Punjab and
Haryana High Court, 2008 (1) RCR (Cri.) 623, the accused with a bad intention and evil design called the prosecutrix (a young girl) to his cattle shed on the pretext of seeking her help in picking up the fertilizer bag, thereafter grappled with her ; made her to lie on the ground, undressed her by removing the salwar and tried to rape her, it was held that, "It could well be said that the accused did overt act towards the progress of the crime as intended by him. Had the prosecutrix not slapped or inflicted fist blows, then the accused would have succeeded in commission of the intended crime. Consequently, it would not be unsafe, in the given circumstances of the case, to hold that the accused attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix falling within the purview of Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC."
36 Thus all the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for accused are in favour of prosecution. They only reinforce the observations made by the Court that the acts of accused would have culminated into an offence had he succeeded in his design of satisfying his lust by using force on a tender aged two years old child. 37 The nutshell of foregoing discussion is that I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused Sachin Kumar on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I hold guilty accused Sachin Kumar SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 18 of 19 19 for the offences punishable u/s. 376/511 IPC and he is convicted accordingly.
(Announced in the open Court ) (Illa Rawat)
(Today on 03.08.2013) Addl. Sessions Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi.
SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 19 of 19
20
FIR No. 345/11
P.S. Aman Vihar
03.08.2013
Present : Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel Sh. Krishan Kumar.
Ld. Additional PP has addressed arguments.
Rebuttal arguments also heard.
Judgment shall be passed during the course of the day.
ASJ/NW01
Rohini/Delhi
03.08.2013
At 2:30 PM
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Accused on bail with counsel Sh. Krishan Kumar.
Vide separate judgment announced today in the open Court, accused Sachin Kumar has been convicted u/s.376/511 IPC.
Be listed for arguments on the point of sentence on 06.08.2013.
(Illa Rawat) Addl. Sessions Judge (NorthWest)01 Rohini/Delhi 03.08.2013 SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 20 of 19 21 IN THE COURT OF MS. ILLA RAWAT : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTHWEST)01, ROHINI : DELHI (Sessions Case No. 11/12) Unique ID case No. 02404R0010712012 State Vs. Sachin Kumar FIR No. : 345/11 U/s : 376/511 IPC P.S. : Aman Vihar State Vs. Sachin Kumar S/o Raj Narain Bhagat 06.08.2013 Present : Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict in person with counsel Sh. K.K. Sharma ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE In the present case, the convict - Sachin Kumar has been convicted u/s 376/511 IPC.
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, SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 21 of 19 22 convict attempted to rape a minor child aged about two years 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, it has been submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel that the convictSachin Kumar is of young age and is the only son of his parents. His father is handicapped and he has three sisters of marriageable age to look after. He also has responsibility of his parents and sisters. It is further submitted that convict belongs to a low strata of society and is first time offender and he remained in custody for a period of about two and a half months and he prays that a lenient view may be taken in this case and he be given a chance of rehabilitation.
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 Sachin Kumar has been convicted for committing the offence punishable u/s- 376/511. The convict had attempted to commit rape upon a minor girl child aged about only two years. The act of convict, though on face of it, is not gruesome, but has had far fetched and irreparable consequences on the life of a minor girl child. The instances of minor girls being victim to such nefarious acts and deeds are on rise and thus, no leniency is called for in the matter. I hereby sentence convict Sachin Kumar to undergo rigorous SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 22 of 19 23 imprisonment of four years along with a fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, u/s 376/511 IPC. The convict is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ as compensation to the victim child through her mother.
Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be also given to the convict.
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 06.08.2013) Addl. Session Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 11/12 State Vs. Sachin Kumar Page Nos. 23 of 19