Delhi District Court
Sc No. 156/10, Fir No. 408/07 "State vs . Sunita" 1 /30 on 30 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL,
ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
S.C. No. 156/10
(Unique I.D. No. 02403R0088152009)
FIR No. 408/07
U/S: 363/302 IPC
PS: R.K. Puram
State
versus
Sunita
W/o Ishwar Singh
R/o Garage, Quarter No.362,
Sector-12, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi
Date of initial Institution : 22.09.2007
Date of Institution in this Court : 13.12.2010
Date of Reserving Order : 16.01.2013
Date of Pronouncement Order : 30.01.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.07.2007 between 5:30 p.m to 8:15 p.m. Ashok Kumar (juvenile) son of the SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 1 /30 accused committed rape and sodomy on a three years old girl (name withheld) and thereafter killed her by stuffing cloth in her mouth and the accused on coming to know that her son had committed the above offences, got removed his blood stained clothes, which he was wearing at the time of the incident, washed those clothes and concealed them under bushes in a park so as to destroy and destruct the evidence of the offence committed by her son, in order to screen him from legal punishment.
2. FIR No. 408/2007 was registered under Section 363/302 IPC on 21.07.2007 on the information given by Jeevan Kumar that his three years old daughter was found missing at about 6:30 p.m by her mother Saraswati; when he with his family members tried to search her, he found the dead body of his daughter lying on the fourth floor with a cloth in her mouth and a stone lying nearby. Investigations revealed that Ashok Kumar (juvenile) was seen with the deceased last. Ashok Kumar on being apprehended and interrogated, disclosed that he had committed rape and sodomy with the deceased and thereafter he had killed SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 2 /30 her. He also disclosed that he suffered injuries during commission of the offence and he cleaned the blood from a cloth and threw it in dustbin. He had also disclosed that he told the entire incident to his mother Sunita (accused in this case), who asked him to take off the blood stained clothes, which she washed and she concealed those clothes in a bush in the park, which she got recovered subsequently. Since Ashok Kumar was a juvenile, he was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board and against Sunita, charge sheet was filed. The case was committed to this court as the main offence i.e murder was triable by the Sessions Court.
3. On 12.08.2010, charge was framed against the accused Sunita under Section 201 IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined 19 witnesses in support of its case.
4.1 PW-1 Geeta Kanwar is the Principal of MCD Primary School and she proved the date of birth of juvenile Ashok SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 3 /30 as 06.10.1994, which she proved as Ex. PW1/A. 4.2 PW-2 Deepak Kumar had identified the dead body of the deceased on 22.07.2007 at Safdarjang Hospital Mortuary. 4.3 PW-3 Rinko Devi deposed that on 21.07.2007, juvenile Ashok had come to her garage and she had given him rice and pulse to eat at about 5:00 p.m. She deposed that when she came back at 7:00 p.m, she came to know about the death of the deceased but she does not know how she died. With the permission of the court, leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP but she denied to have stated that she saw juvenile Ashok with the deceased to be eating rice and pulse which she had given to Ashok. In her cross-examination, she stated that police had arrested Sunita and Ashok on 21.07.2007 i.e date of incident.
4.4 PW-4 Hari Ram deposed that he runs a beetle shop and on 21.07.2007 between 5:00 p.m to 5:15 p.m, he saw Ashok alongwith a girl aged about 3 years passing in front of his shop. SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 4 /30 Leading questions were put to this witness also by the Ld. Addl. PP, to which, he replied that he had identified the girl after seeing the photographs and had identified her only after seeing her clothes.
4.5 PW-5 Jeevan Kumar is the father of the deceased. He stated that on 21.07.2007 his daughter was missing from in front of the garage while she was playing; he made efforts to search her and thereafter he informed at 100 number. Police came at the spot. During search, he alongwith two persons went on the fourth floor of the flat where he found dead body of his daughter lying on the gallery of the stairs. At that time, a cloth was inside the mouth of his daughter and one stone was also lying on her back side. After seeing the dead body, he became unconscious. Police recorded his statement Mark A-1. Next day, after the postmortem, dead body of his daughter was received. He had identified her dead body. He was called by the police several times in the PS where his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and on some written papers. Police arrested accused Sunita as well as her SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 5 /30 son Ashok on the date of incident i.e 21.07.2007. The witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP. He stated that on 21.07.2007, the spot was also got photographed. Crime Team as well as dogs squad also came there and the site plan was prepared. He denied to have made any statement to the police on 26.07.2007 or on 27.07.2007. He denied to have joined investigation on 27.07.2007. He denied that the accused Sunita was arrested in his presence. He also denied that on 21.07.2007 at about 6:30 p.m when accused Sunita was present in her room, her son Ashok came to the house and informed her that he had raped the deceased and thereafter killed her after inserting cloth in her mouth. He denied to have stated to the police that Sunita had disclosed that she washed the blood stained clothes of Ashok with intention to save him and she had concealed the washed clothes under the bushes in the park, in a polythene and she got recovered the clothes. He denied the suggestion that being relative of Sunita, he was deposing falsely. In his cross-examination by the accused, he stated that accused Sunita had never made any statement in his presence. He stated that Ashok never made any statement in his SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 6 /30 presence that her mother had taken his blood stained clothes and washed them and offered him new clothes so that he can run away from there. He further stated that no recovery was made in his presence by the accused Sunita and Ashok.
4.6 PW-6 ASI Prakash Chand Meena deposed about recording of DD No. 24-A on 21.07.2007 at 7.55 PM regarding missing of a three year old girl from Garage No. 80, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. He proved the said DD as Ex.PW6/A. He further stated that on the same night at about 10.50 PM, he recorded the FIR No. 408/07 u/s 363/302 IPC in this case, which he proved as Ex.PW6/B. 4.7 PW-7 HC Garib Chand deposed that on 21.07.2007, he had reached the spot i.e. Garage No. 79, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, with ASI Samay Singh. Thereafter, they went on the fourth floor of the said quarter, where, a dead body of a three year old girl was found. ASI Samay Singh took photographs of the spot from a private camera and he also called senior officers at the spot. At the instance of the IO/Insp. R.K. Tyagi, dead body SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 7 /30 was taken to Safdarjang Hospital Mortuary. In his cross- examination, he admitted that there is no document on record to show that he was present on the date of the incident, alongwith the IO at the spot.
4.8 PW-8 Roshan Lal, Astt. Ahlmad from Juvenile Justice Board-II produced the original case-file of the case titled 'State Vs. Ashok Kumar', FIR No. 408/07, PS-R.K. Puram, and as per the record, Juvenile-Ashok Kumar was acquitted on 08.04.2009.
4.9 PW-9 HC Manju deposed that on 27.07.2007, she joined the investigation with Insp. R.K. Tyagi, and had gone to Garage of Quarter No. 362, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, with Ashok (Juvenile), Insp. R.K. Tyagi, Insp. B.P. Yadav and SI Virender Singh. She stated that at the instance of Ashok Kumar, they arrested accused Sunita vide arrest memo EX.PW9/A. Her personal search memo was proved as EX.PW9/B. She proved the recording of disclosure statement of accused as EX.PW5/A. In pursuance to her disclosure statement, she got recovered one SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 8 /30 polythene containing pant, shirt and underwear of his son-Ashok Kumar from the bushes near Quarter No. 362, Sector-12, R.K. Puram. IO seized the same vide seizure memo EX.PW5/B after converting the same into pullanda. She identified the clothes, which were exhibited as P-1, P-2 and P-3 respectively. In her cross-examination, she could not tell the time when she went to arrest accused Sunita. She admitted that her signatures do not appear on the seizure memo EX.PW5/B, although, her name appears on the arrest memo. She denied the suggestion that the said memo was not prepared in her presence or that Sunita was not arrested in her presence or that the clothes were not recovered in her presence. She also denied the suggestion that no recovery was made at the instance of accused Sunita.
4.10 PW-10 IO-B.P. Yadav, ACP (CAW) deposed that on 27.07.2007, he remained associated in this case with Insp. R.K. Tyagi alongwith other staff. He stated that on that day, at the pointing out of Juvenile-Ashok Kumar, accused Sunita was apprehended by the IO; she was interrogated and was later on SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 9 /30 arrested by the IO from Garage No. 362. He proved her arrest memo as EX.PW9/A, her personal search memo as EX.PW9/B and her disclosure statement as EX.PW5/A. At her pointing out, clothes of Ashok, which were worn by him at the time of commission of offence, were also recovered from a park, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo EX.PW5/B. All these memos bear his signatures. He Identified the clothes. In his cross- examination, he stated that Sunita was arrested at about 8.30 AM, by the IO. He denied the suggestion that Sunita was not arrested in his presence or that no disclosure statement or recovery was made in his presence.
4.11 PW-11 SI Virender Singh deposed that on 21.07.2007, dead body of a 5-6 years old girl child was found on the stairs of the houses in Block Nos. 79-84, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. On 22.07.2007, he prepared inquest papers and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to Jeevan Kumar- father of the deceased. On 27.07.2007, he alongwith Juvenile-Ashok, IO/Insp. R.K. Tyagi, Insp. B.P. Yadav, HC Manju SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 10 /30 and Jeevan Kumar (father of the deceased), had gone to Garage No. 362. At the pointing out of Ashok Kumar, accused Sunita was interrogated by the IO with the assistance of HC Manju. Ashok had stated that his mother-Sunita, on being told by him about rape and murder, had asked him to give his clothes to her and to run away. At the pointing out of Sunita, a polythene containing clothes of Juvenile-Ashok i.e. pant, shirt and underwear, were recovered from underneath the bushes in the park opposite her Garage. The clothes were seized and sealed with the seal of 'RKT'. He proved the seizure memo as EX.PW5/B. He stated that after use of seal, it was handed over to him. He proved the arrest memo as EX.PW9/A, search memo as EX.PW9/B. The disclosure statement was proved as EX.PW5/A. He identified the accused in the court as well as the clothes. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Jeevan Kumar was present at the spot at the time of the recovery of the clothes. He denied the suggestion that accused Sunita was not arrested in his presence or no disclosure statement was made by her and no recovery was effected at the instance of accused Sunita, or that she was falsely implicated in this case.
SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 11 /30 4.12 PW-12 Ct. Dharam Pal stated that in the year 2007, he was working as In-Charge, Dog Squad, and on one day, he had taken dog-Teena at Block, House No. 83-84 and after taking smell from the body, dog could move upto the road downstairs and no other clue could be ascertained.
4.13 PW-13 Ct. Sanjay Kumar stated that on 22.07.2007, he carried the rukka from the spot to Police Station for registration of FIR.
4.14 PW-14 Hari Prasad Pandey is Manager of Vishal Tent House and he stated that Ashok used to work in Vishal Tent House as labour, in the year 2007. On 22.07.2007, Ashok Kumar had come to Tent House at about 10.00 AM and looked perplexed. To a leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP, he stated that on 21.07.2007, Ashok Kumar had come to the Tent House for his duties and on 22.07.2007, after Ashok had gone, his mother had come to the Tent House to enquire about him, from him as to whether Ashok had gone alone or was taken by police. In his cross-examination, he stated that accused Sunita had come in Tent SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 12 /30 House on that day perchance, and previously, she had not come in the Tent House.
4.15 PW-15 Pradeep Singh proved the scaled site-plan as EX.PW15/A. 4.16 PW-16 ASI Ram Niwas is MHC (M), and he proved about deposit of case properties with him between 21.07.2007 to 27.07.2007 on five occasions. He stated that on 08.08.2007, he had sent 10 pullandas, alongwith sample seal of the hospital, to FSL through Ct. Chhotu Ram vide EX.PW16/F. 4.17 PW-17 Ct. Chhotu Ram deposed that on 08.08.2007, he had deposited 10 pullandas sealed with the seal of Safdarjang Hospital alongwith one sample seal, with FSL Rohini. 4.18 PW-18 Insp. Dharam Pal Kalra stated that on 27.07.2007, he had seized blood samples of Juvenile-Ashok from Safdarjang Hospital, and thereafter, deposited the same in the Maalkhana.
SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 13 /30 4.19 PW-19 Insp. Ravinder Kumar stated that on 21.07.2007, in the evening, an information was received regarding missing of a girl in Sector-12, R.K. Puram vide DD No. 24-A, and on receipt of information he alongwith SI Subhash Malik, SI D.P. Kalra, HC Ved Prakash, Ct. Sanjay and Ct. Satpal reached at H.No. 79, Sector-12, R.K. Puram, where, on the top floor of Block 79-84, a dead body of a girl child, was lying at the place where the doors of the terrace open. At the spot he met complainant Jeevan Kumar- father of the girl and recorded his statement, which he proved as Ex.PW19/A. He prepared rukka on this which he proved as EX.PW19/B. He proved site plan of the spot as EX.PW19/C. On 22.07.2007, postmortem of dead body was got conducted by him. He stated that on 26.7.2007, accused Ashok Kumar (juvenile) was arrested and he was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/I. He further deposed that on 27.07.2007, accused Sunita, mother of juvenile Ashok Kumar, was arrested vide Ex PW 9/A on the basis of disclosure statement and pointing out by the juvenile Ashok Kumar. Her disclosure statement was also recorded vide EX PW5/A. Thereafter, at the pointing out of SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 14 /30 accused Sunita, the clothes of Juvenile- Ashok Kumar, which were worn by him at the time of commission of crime, were recovered and the same were converted into pullanda and seized vide seizure memo EX.PW5/B. Exhibits were also sent to FSL, and later on, FSL result was also filed after filing the charge-sheet in the court. In his cross examination he stated that HC Manju was a witness to the arrest of accused Sunita but her signatures do not appear on the arrest memo EX.PW9/A, although, her name appears at Sl. No. 2 as a witness to arrest. He denied the suggestion that Sunita was not arrested on 27.07.2007 and she was in police custody since 21.07.2007. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was got made by Sunita.
5. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused in her statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, wherein, she stated that her son-Ashok Kumar was taken in custody on 21.07.2007 itself. She denied her complicity in the matter and denied to have got recovered the clothes which were seized vide seizure memo EX.PW5/B. She stated that she is innocent and has SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 15 /30 been implicated by police in a false case. She sought permission to lead defence evidence, however, no defence evidence was led on her behalf.
6. Ld. Addl. PP has stated that it is a case where the accused had, in order to save her son, washed clothes worn by her son and then concealed them under a bush, which she got recovered. It was stated that though the witnesses of 'last seen' of Ashok with the deceased, turned hostile, but the postmortem report of the deceased shows rice, which confirms the prosecution case that PW-3 Rinko Devi had seen the deceased and Ashok together eating dal-chawal at about 5 pm. The said Post-mortem report also showed that the deceased was raped and sodomized before being killed. It was also stated that the accused had disclosed about her role in the offence and in pursuance of her disclosure, the clothes worn by Ashok at the time of the offence, were recovered, which were seized and sent to FSL. It has thus been stated that the offence of section 201 IPC is clear against the accused and she may be convicted for the same.
SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 16 /30
7. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that no case is made out against the accused u/s 201 IPC in as much as the main accused Ashok was acquitted vide Judgment dt. 8.4.2009 by the Juvenile Justice Board u/s 302/376/377/366 IPC. It has been stated that when the main offence could not be proved, the offence u/s 201 IPC can also not be proved as the case of the prosecution is that the accused Sunita in order to screen her son from legal punishment, caused disappearance of the evidence of the crime committed by her son Ashok and it has been held by judicial pronouncement that Ashok had committed no offence. He stated that when it was held that Ashok had not committed any offence, where was the need for the accused to cause disappearance of evidence. It has been stated that the Judgment dt. 8.4.2009 was never challenged before any Court and hence the same attained finality. It has been stated that apart from Ashok, there was no other arrest made by police for the offence. On merits, it has been stated that the prosecution has not been able to prove alleged recovery of the clothes at the instance of the accused in as much as no public witness was associated in the said recovery. It was SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 17 /30 argued that even the arrest of the accused is doubtful as her arrest memo has not been signed by PW-9 HC Manju although her name is mentioned on the said Memo. Ld. Counsel has argued that the alleged incident of murder took place on 21.7.2007 and the accused was arrested on 21st itself though she is stated to have been arrested on 27.7.2007 and the recovery of clothes was planted upon her. Ld. Counsel has thus prayed for acquittal.
8. I have heard both the sides and have carefully perused records of the case.
9. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the accused can be held guilty for an offence u/s 201 IPC for destruction of evidence of offences u/s 302/376/377/366 IPC which is stated to have been committed by her son Ashok - who was acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board.
10. Relevant portion of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:
"201. Causing disappearance of evidence of SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 18 /30 offence, or giving false information to screen offender.- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.
11. The ingredients of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code are as under:
(1) that an offence has been committed;
(2) that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such offence;
(3) that with such knowledge or belief he
(a) caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, or
(b) gave any information respecting that offence which he then knew or believed to be false;
(4) that he did as aforesaid, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment;
SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 19 /30
12. The language of Section 201 IPC makes it clear that it is a distinct offence and is an offence in itself if a person knowingly causes disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, of an offence which he knows to have been committed. This section does not limit its expanse only to the offender of the main offence, but also takes within its sweep any other person who causes disappearance of evidence of such an offence. The condition precedent for operation of this section is that the said person knows that the offence has been committed (or has reason to believe so) and he causes disappearance of evidence, with the object of screening the actual offender from legal punishment. So, what is necessary is the knowledge of the person that an offence has been committed by the offender. The said knowledge must be shared by the person at that particular point of time when he causes disappearance of evidence. It has got nothing to do with the subsequent fate of the judicial trial against the offender about his complicity. The offence of causing disappearance of evidence is complete as soon as the person causes disappearance of evidence of such offence after it comes to his SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 20 /30 knowledge that the offender has committed the said offence. In 'Vinod Bhalla vs. State' 1992 Cr LJ 3527, MP High Court acquitted the main accused Vinod Bhalla u/s 302 IPC but convicted Sarojini u/s 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence. In the case in hand, it is held that acquittal of Ashok in the trial u/s 302/376/377/366 IPC has nothing to do with the present trial of his mother u/s 201 IPC - it being a separate offence in itself.
13. Let us now see if the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused, as is the principle of criminal trials.
14. PW 6 ASI Prakash Chand Meena deposed that on 21.7.2007 he recorded DD No. 24 A at 7.55 pm regarding taking away of a girl aged three years from Park of Sector 12, R.K. Puram, Garage No. 80. On the same night, at 10.15 pm he recorded FIR No. 408/07 u/s 363/302 IPC. PW-7 HC Garib Chand deposed that on 21.7.2007 he went to Garage No. 79 and thereafter went to fourth floor of the said quarter where he found the dead body of a baby girl, aged about 3 years. PW-19 Inspector Ravinder SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 21 /30 Kumar stated that he got the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased conducted on 22.7.2007. Ashok was arrested on 26.7.2007 while the accused Sunita was arrested on 27.7.2007 on the disclosure of Ashok Kumar. As per her disclosure and at her pointing out, clothes of Ashok worn by him at the time of commission of crime, were recovered from bushes in a park from a polythene. From this polythene, a crème colour pant, a crème colour shirt, having washing stains and an underwear were recovered which were converted into pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/B. This memo bears signatures of Insp. B.P. Yadav, SI Virender Singh and Jeevan as witnesses and of IO/Insp. R.K. Tyagi. He deposed that the exhibits were sent to FSL and were filed with the charge-sheet. The arrest memo of the accused is dt. 27.7.2007 and the time of her arrest is 8.30 am. This memo is Ex. PW-9/A and bears of signatures of the IO/Insp. R.K. Tyagi and Inspector B.P. Yadav, although it does not bear signatures of HC Manju. Non signatures of HC Manju does not invalidate the arrest of the accused as the signatures of Inspector B.P. Yadav appears as a witness to this arrest. There is no law that SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 22 /30 the evidence of a police witness is not to be relied upon. On the contrary, the law is well-settled that the testimony of police personnel, should be treated in same manner as testimony of any other witness, and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witness, their deposition cannot be relied upon, as was held in 'Karamjeet Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi' AIR 2003, SC 1311. Even the objection raised that the accused and her son-Ashok were arrested on the date of incident itself i.e. on 21.07.2007, is also contrary to the deposition of PW-14 Hari Prasad Pandey, as he has stated that on 22.07.2007, juvenile-Ashok had come to the Tent House and thereafter his mother (accused Sunita) had also gone there asking for Ashok as to whether he had come there and whether he had gone alone or was taken by police. This shows that not only the accused Sunita, but even her son-Ashok (Juvenile) were also free persons on 22.07.2007, and as such, the question of their arrest/apprehension since 21.07.2007, does not arise. The arrest memos of Juvenile- Ashok and accused Sunita show that they were arrested on 26.07.2007 and 27.07.2007 respectively and this court has no SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 23 /30 reason to doubt these dates. Information of arrest of accused Sunita was given to her husband Ishwar Singh and his thumb impression appears on the arrest memo. The memo of the seizure of clothes of the accused is Ex. PW-5/B. PW-5 Jeevan Kumar is the father of the deceased girl. He admitted that Ex. PW-5/B bears his signatures but had stated that police had taken his signatures on blank papers. He had admitted that the accused was his relative and hence it is not difficult to comprehend that for the reason of being a relative of the accused, he did not support the prosecution case. The case of the defence is that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case, but there is no explanation as to why the prosecution has implicated her in this case. The juvenile-Ashok was already apprehended and arrested on 26.07.2007 for the offence of murder of the deceased girl, and no plausible reason is coming forth for the implication of the present accused for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence of murder. No defence evidence was led, although, permission was sought in this regard. The post-mortem report shows that the deceased was raped, sodomized and then killed after stuffing cloth in her mouth. SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 24 /30 PW-17 Ct. Chhotu Ram deposed to have deposited 10 pullandas with the seal of Safdarjung Hospital, with FSL on 8.8.2007. The seized clothes of Ashok and the deceased were sent to FSL where human semen was detected on the underwear of Ashok and on skirt of deceased. Ashok was arrested on 26.7.2007 while the accused was arrested on 27.7.2007. All these circumstances taken together, lead one to the only irresistible conclusion that accused Sunita, being mother of Ashok Kumar knew on 21.07.2007 that the offence of murder had taken place and in order to shield her son from legal punishment, she tried to cause disappearance of the evidence of the offence, which could implicate her son, by concealing clothes of Ashok in park under the bushes, which were recovered at her instance. All the ingredients of the offence u/s 201 IPC are fulfilled. She is therefore, held guilty u/s 201 IPC and is convicted for the said offence.
Announced in the open Court. (Rajeev Bansal)
Dated:30.01.2013 ASJ-3/South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 25 /30
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJEEV BANSAL,
ASJ-03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
S.C. No. 156/10
(Unique I.D. No. 02403R0088152009)
FIR No. 408/07
U/S: 363/302 IPC
PS: R.K. Puram
State
versus
Sunita
W/o Ishwar Singh
R/o Garage, Quarter No.362,
Sector-12, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Ld. Counsel for convict has stated that the convict Sunita has been convicted u/s 201 IPC. It has been stated by the Ld. Counsel that husband of the convict is a cancer patient, who is undergoing treatment at Safdarjang Hospital. The convict herself is 50 years of age and has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about 3 months during trial. It has been prayed that in the circumstances of the case, the convict may either be released on the sentence of SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 26 /30 imprisonment already undergone by her or if not that, she be released on probation.
On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP has argued that the convict be given maximum punishment as she caused disappearance of the evidence of the offences committed by her son which were heinous in nature i.e the offences of rape, sodomy and murder of a three years old girl.
Heard both the Ld. Counsels. I have also perused the records.
The conviction is under Section 201 IPC. Section 201 IPC provides that if disappearance of the evidence is caused of a capital offence, the punishment under Section 201 IPC can extend to imprisonment of either description upto 7 years and also fine.
In State of UP vs. Kishan AIR 2005 SC 1250 it was laid down that the object of the sentence is to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving. Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 27 /30 committed not only against the victim but also against the society, to which both the victim and the criminal belong. Punishment, to be awarded for a crime, must not be irrelevant but it should be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which crime was done. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would have the effect of undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is thus the duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed.
Vide Judgment dt. 30.01.2013, the accused was convicted u/s 201 IPC. The offence of murder as well as rape and sodomy had been committed. The convict had caused disappearance of the evidence of such an offence. Every citizen is expected to aid the authorities in administration of justice and one is not expected to cause hindrances in this direction. The very title of Chapter XI of IPC makes this object clear. The title of Chapter XI reads 'Of false evidence and offences against public justice'. Section 201 IPC also falls under Chapter XI. This Section takes within its sweep, not SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 28 /30 only the actual offender - who had committed the substantive offence, but also covers a person who helps such an offender by causing disappearance of the evidence of the offence committed by the main offender. This Section declares that even such person who so helps the main offender, shall also be an offender and prescribes stringent punishment even for such 'helper', so as to deter him from making such efforts.
The prayer of the convict for being released on probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C cannot be acceded to in view of the fact that the offences of rape, sodomy and murder were committed against a minor girl of three years of age and the benevolent provision of Section 360 Cr.P.C, cannot come to aid of a person, who causes disappearance of the evidence of such an offence.
Keeping in view the circumstance that the convict is a female of 50 years of age and her husband is suffering from cancer, this court, taking a lenient view, is not awarding maximum punishment to the convict, unlike prayed by the prosecution. At the same time, this court also does not deem it appropriate to SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 29 /30 release the convict on the sentence of the period already undergone by her as an Under Trial Prisoner as the same would be nothing but flea-bite.
Taking an overall view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to sentence the convict to undergo RI for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months in case of non- payment of fine. The convict shall be entitled to the benefit of the provision of Section 428 Cr.P.C. A copy of the Judgment and this Order on Sentence be provided to the convict free of charges.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court. (Rajeev Bansal)
Dated: 31.01.2013 ASJ-3/South District
Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No. 156/10, FIR No. 408/07 "State Vs. Sunita" 30 /30