Delhi District Court
The State vs Shymal Lal S/O Banshi Expired/Abated on 20 September, 2012
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No. : 245/09
PS : Sultanpuri (Crime Branch)
U/s : 372/373/368/120-B IPC
Unique Case ID : 02404R0 165572010
In the matter of
The State
Versus
1. Shymal Lal s/o Banshi EXPIRED/ABATED
R/o Village Sodawas, PS Mundawar
Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Ashok @ Pappu s/o Pyre Lal
R/o Village Sodawas, PS Mundawar
Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan
3. Veena W/o Pramod
R/o Village Sodawas, PS Mundawar
Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan.
...ACCUSED
Session Case No. : 453/10
Date of Institution : 08.07.2010
Date of Committal : 20.07.2010
Date of reserving judgment/order : 20.09.2012
Date of pronouncement : 20.09.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. Accused Bimla, Mukesh, Kartar, Shyam Lal, Ashok @ Pappu and Veena were sent up by police of PS Sultan Puri (Crime Branch) to stand trial for offences punishable U/s 363/366A/365/372/ 368/373/34/120 B IPC.
FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 1 of 23 -2-2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.07.2009 Sh Ravinder Singh came to the police station Sultan Puri and got his statement recorded. He stated that his daughter aged about 4 years namely 'M' (name withheld) had gone with his sister-in- law Jyoti to the market and due to the crowd in the market she went missing. He tried to search her but could not be traced. On the basis of the same, the FIR u/s 363 IPC was registered. During the investigation, the complainant had shown suspicion against Ms. Bimla w/o Lalchand and Ms. Mukesh w/o Dilbag. Both were found missing from their houses. Thereafter offence punishable u/s 365 IPC was added and warrants were got issued against Bimla and Mukesh. Thereafter Bimla was arrested. Area people had also given an application at the police station that Bimla and Mukesh had kidnapped two other girls other than victim M from the area and thereafter the investigation was transferred. On 9.5.2010 DD No. 11A was got recorded at the police station that accused Ashok @ Pappu, Shyam Lal, Veena and Mangal were arrested vide DD No. 6 A dt. 8.5.2010 u/s 41.1
(a) and accused persons made disclosure statement regarding FIR No. 150/09 and 245/09 u/s 363 IPC and kidnapped girls were recovered and were produced in the court of MM at Rohini Court. Thereafter accused Shyam Lal, Veena and Pappu were formally arrested. The child was handed to her father by CWC. Thereafter on the order of Commissioner of Police, Delhi the case was transferred to Crime Branch. Accused Mukesh and Shyam Lal were taken to police custody remand and they were interrogated. Shyam Lal has stated that he got FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 2 of 23 -3- victim 'M' lifted through Bimla and was kidnapped and child was sold by Bimla to Mukesh and Kartar for Rs.2500/- and they sold the child at Village Sodawas to Shyam Lal for Rs.20,000/- and Shyam Lal handed over the child to Veena and Ashok @ Pappu who are brother and sister so that they bring up the girl for getting her prepared for prostitution. It was revealed that in the village Sodawas and Giriwas, the children are used for prostitution. Thereafter on 16.05.2010 Kartar and Mukesh were arrested in case FIR No. 575/08 at PS Sultanpur. Then they were formally arrested in this case. The child could not give her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC due to mental trauma and being young child. After completion of the investigation, said accused persons were charge sheeted u/s 363/366A/365/368/372/373/34/120 B IPC.
3. After supplying the necessary copies to the accused, the case was committed to the court of session vide order dated 20.07.2010 by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
4. My Ld. Predecessor vide order on charge dated 23.12.2010 discharged accused persons namely Bimla, Mukesh, Kartar whereas charged the accused Shyam Lal for offence punishable u/s 372/373/120 B IPC and charged accused Veena and Ashok @ Pappu for offence punishable u/s 373/120B/368 IPC and accordingly vide order dated 16.01.2012 framed the charges against accused persons for the said offences, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 3 of 23 -4-5. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 14 witnesses :-
6. The prosecution examined following material witnesses :-
i. PW-3 Smt. Jyoti aunt (mausi) of the victim.
ii. PW-4 Smt. Bharti mother of the victim.
iii. PW-6 Sh. Ravinder Singh father of the victim who proved missing report of her daughter as Ex.PW-6/A.
7. The prosecution also examined following formal witnesses :-
i. PW-1 HC Rajesh is duty officer who on the basis of rukka recorded FIR of this case and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW-1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW-1/B. ii. PW-2 Smt. Raj Bidlani is witness of suspicion against accused Bimla and Mukesh (Discharged accused) iii. PW-5 HC Satish who is also witness in respect of formal arrest of accused Bimla (discharged accused).
iv. PW-13 Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate before whom application for recording statement of the child u/s 164 Cr.PC was moved. However, he did not record the statement of the child as she was unable to answer due her tender age. He proved the application as Ex.PW-13/A, and proceedings Ex.PW-13/B and application for supply the copy of the proceedings Ex.PW-13/C. FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 4 of 23 -5-
8. The prosecution also examined following witnesses of recovery of the victim, arrest of accused and investigation :
i. PW-7 SI Naveen Kumar member of raiding party and witness of recovery of victim from the possession of accused and their arrest and disclosure statements. He proved arrest memo of accused Shyam Lal and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B respectively. He also proved arrest memos of accused Beena and Ashok @ Pappu as Ex.PW-7/C and Ex.PW-7/D, their personal search memo Ex.PW-7/E and Ex.PW-7/F and their disclosure statement Ex.PW-7/G and Ex.PW-7/H, seizure memo of girl Ex.PW-7/J. He is also witness regarding arrest of accused Mangal (discharged accused) and recovery of other girls related to other case.
ii. PW-8 HC Dilbag Singh is member of raiding party and witness of recovery of child from the accused and arrest of accused.
iii. PW-9 SI K. S. Dogra is witness who formally arrested accused Shyam Lal, Ashok and Veena after their arrest and proved their arrest memos as Ex.PW-9/A, Ex.PW-9/B and Ex.PW-9/C. iv. PW-10 HC Charan Singh is also witness of formal arrest of accused Mukesh and Kartar (discharged accused). He is witness of disclosure statement made FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 5 of 23 -6- by accused Shyam Lal and proved the same as Ex.PW-10/C. v. PW-11 ASI Ranbir Singh, initial investigating officer who had got registered the FIR with respect to missing of the child and proved the rukka as Ex.PW-11/A vi. PW-12 SI Rajnikant, is also part investigating officer who recorded disclosure statement of accused Shyam Lal and obtained his police custody remand and interrogated accused Mukesh and Kartar (discharged accused), formally arrested both of them and recorded their disclosure statement and also witness of recovery of other girls on 16.05.2010.
vii.PW-14 SI Ashok Kumar is the IO who had received complaint of several residents of area in respect of kidnapping of the four girls against Bimla and Mukesh (discharged accused)
9. After conclusion of the trial, statement U/s 313 Cr. PC of accused was recorded wherein they denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence.
10. Accused Ashok @ Pappu stated that he has been lifted by the police from his village when he was sleeping and they brought him to Delhi and falsely implicated in this case. He did not make any disclosure statement. However, police obtained his signature on the blank papers and later on manipulated the same FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 6 of 23 -7- and converted it into disclosure statement etc. He did not get recovered any girl. However, he chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
11. Accused Veena, sister of accused Ashok @ Pappu similarly stated that she has been lifted by the police from her village when she was sleeping and they brought her to Delhi and falsely implicated in this case and she did not get recovered any girl. She also chose not to lead evidence in her defence.
12. Accused Shyam Lal similarly stated on the line of statement of other co-accused and he also chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
13. After conclusion of the trial, accused Shyam Lal died while he was in the judicial custody and hence the proceedings against him was abated.
14. I have heard Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Ms. Sindhu Sakkarwal and Sh. Santosh Singh, Advocates for accused Smt. Veena and Ashok @ Pappu. I have also gone through the record.
15. PW-6 Sh. Ravinder Singh testified that 'M' is his daughter aged about four years at the time of incident and his daughter 'M' was missing from market of Sultanpuri, where she went alongwith her mausi namely Jyoti. He lodged the complaint in this respect. He had suspicion on the accused Bimla and accused (Mukesh) as they were absconding.FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 7 of 23 -8-
16. PW-4 Smt. Bharti mother of the victim similarly corroborated her husband PW-6 regarding missing of her daughter on 7.2.2009 and stated date of birth of daughter is 20.03.2006 and she was born at SGM Hospital Mangolpuri and she has got birth certificate of her daughter and can produce the same. PW-3 Ms. Jyoti stated that 'M' is her niece who on 8.7.2009 went missing and they had suspicion that accused Bimla and Mukesh were responsible for the missing.
17. PW-11 ASI Ranbir Singh testified that on 8.7.2009, at about 7:00 p.m. one public witness Ravinder s/o Anand Singh came at the police station and gave his statement regarding his daughter 'M' aged about four years and he recorded his statement and attested the same and made endorsement and prepared rukka and got registered the FIR u/s 363 IPC.
18. PW-7 SI Naveen Kumar testified that on 08.05.2010 he received an information that, 'one person namely Shyam Lal, who was residing at Sodawas, District-Alwar, Rajasthan, used to procure/purchase girls from Delhi and used sell them off at the villages Sodawas and Girwas, District-Alwar, Rajasthan and if raided, he can be apprehended, as he was present there in his village and the kidnapped girls could also be recovered. On this secret information, consultations were made with senior officers and, thereafter, a raiding party was organized under the supervision Inspector Maninder Singh and other staff namely HC Dilbagh Singh, HC Rajender, HC Rishi, HC Rajeev, Ct.
Surender, Ct. Raj Kumar, Ct. Sanjeev, Ct. Sandeep, Ct. P Tirki, FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 8 of 23 -9- Wct. Geeta, Wct. Suneeta and myself. Secret informer also accompanied them. DD No.5 dated 08.05.2010 was recorded to this effect. Thereafter, they all proceeded from their office to Sodawas in private vehicles. They reached at Sodawas and in Sodawas, when they reached near a temple on the information of secret informer, then secret informer pointed out towards a house, situated near the said temple and also pointed out one person, who was sitting outside the said house and told that, the said person is Shyam Lal (proceedings abated). The said Shyam Lal was apprehended and interrogated. He disclosed that he had sold one girl to Ashok @ Pappu and his sister Beena in Sodawas. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Shyam Lal, they reached at village Sodawas in front of the another house, where accused persons namely Beena and Ashok @ Pappu were found sitting, outside the said house and both the accused persons were apprehended and thoroughly interrogated and they affirmed that they had purchased a girl from accused Shyam Lal and the said girl was still in their possession. Thereafter they were arrested and their disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter at their instance one girl aged about 3/4 years was recovered and name of the said girl was revealed as 'M'. Seizure memo to this effect was prepared. Thereafter, they alongwith accused Shyam Lal, Beena and Ashok @ Pappu and girl/victim "'M'" proceeded towards Girwas (relevant for other accused). On the next day all three recovered girls were produced before CWC and all accused were produced before the concerned court of PS Sultanpuri through Kalandara prepared u/s 41.1(a) FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 9 of 23 -10- Cr.PC vide DD No.6 dated 8.5.2010 and PS Sultanpuri was informed regarding the recovery.
19. PW-8 HC Dilbag similarly corroborated PW-7 that Shyam Lal was apprehended on the secret information and he disclosed that he had sold one girl at Sodawas to Ashok @ Pappu and Veena and at his instance they were arrested and girl was recovered.
20. PW-12 SI Rajnikant testified that on 14.05.2010, he had moved an application for production warrants of accused Shyam Lal and Mangal in case FIR No. 150/09 and on the next date i.e. 15.05.2010, accused Shyam Lal and Mangal were produced before the Court and with the permission of the court he interrogated them and recorded their disclosure statement. Police custody remand was taken. On 16.05.2010, Mangal and Shyam Lal took them to village Sodawas and Girwas for recovery of other girls, however, no other victim could be searched.
21. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that there are material inconsistencies in the version of recovery of girl. It is submitted that accused Veena was merely present at the house of her brother accused Ashok @ Pappu and she is married and by mere presence it cannot be said that the child was recovered from her custody. Further it is submitted that the disclosure regarding purchase is inadmissible in evidence and hit by S. 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act.
FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 10 of 23 -11-22. PW-7 in his cross-examination stated he had not placed permission alongwith the charge-sheet. He stated that he reached at village Sodawas at about 4:00/4:15 p.m. They did not give any information regarding their arrival to the local police station. They left the house of accused Shyam Lal at about 5:15/5:30 p.m. He admitted that many villager had collected at that time and the house of accused Ashok would around 5 minutes walk from the house of accused Shyam Lal. They had reached at the house of accused Ashok at about 5:30/5:45 p.m. He stated that he does not know whether accused Beena is wife of one Parmod and whether she used to reside with her husband. He voluntarily stated that when he found Beena, she was with accused Ashok @ Pappu who were sitting outside their house. He admits that they did not record statement of any co-villager or Pradhan that Beena was residing in the house of accused Ashok alongwith him. They did not obtained (sic) any document, from which it could be gathered that Beena was residing in the said house. They interrogated accused Ashok and Beena simultaneously but he does not know whose disclosure statement was recorded first and whose later. He did not prepare site plan of the place of recovery of 'M'. He did not inform local police during the entire investigation conducted at the house of accused Ashok @ Pappu. No information was given to the local police regarding recovery of girl 'M'. No public witness was joined in the recovery proceeding as all of them were someway related to the accused persons. He voluntarily stated that they had also not informed the local FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 11 of 23 -12- police station as it was sensitive case of recovery of minor girl and if the information had been leaked then their entire mission would have failed. They did not seize any document from the concerned house to connect the same with the accused Ashok.
23. PW-8 HC Dilbag stated in his cross-examination that they did not go to the police station in which village Sodawas falls and even he cannot say in which jurisdiction the said village falls. He voluntarily stated that the name of PP is Sodawas, they did not go there to maintain secrecy. They had visited the 'Kanjar Basti' in Sodawas. He admitted that public persons were gathered but they were of the same community to which the accused persons belongs. The house of accused Shyam Lal was at a distance of 5-7 minutes walk from the house of Ashok @ Pappu and Veena. He voluntarily stated that the said house belongs to accused Beena. He does not remember as to how many feet is the front portion of the house of accused Ashok @ Pappu and Beena. Both the said accused persons were found sitting on the side of the door of the house. Front portion of the said house was pakka and inside portion was kacha. There were no other family members present in the house. He does not remember as to how many rooms were there in that house. It was single floor house. No document has been collected from the said house which could show that accused Beena was residing in that house. Neither the husband nor the in-laws of accused Beena were informed about their investigations. He stated that both accused persons Beena and Ashok @ Pappu led FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 12 of 23 -13- them inside the said house together and the girl 'M' was found sitting on a cot inside the house after four/five steps from the gate under the roof. He does not remember whether any site plan with regard to the recovery of girl 'M' was prepared. No public witness was joined in the investigation.
24. Both witnesses are consistent that public witnesses were present but they were not joined. They are also consistent that the distance between the house of accused Shyam Lal and house of Ashok @ Pappu and Beena was 5/7 minutes walk and was in the same village and local police was also not informed. They are consistent regarding the factum of recovery of child and that accused Ashok @ Pappu and Veena were sitting outside the house from where the child was recovered.
25. The explanation given by the witness is very cogent and material that the entire village consist of the relation of the accused persons and the matter being sensitive in which small girls were kidnapped and kept in the village and if the information has been leaked to any place/person it would have been created difficult to recover the child. The testimony of both recovery witnesses are consistent and cogent. Non-joining of the public witness and police of local police station is properly explained. It is fact of common knowledge that human trafficking of girl children are well organized and even the lower level police officials are involved in leaking the information of raid to the traffickers. Therefore joining of public witnesses of same locality and informing local police is FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 13 of 23 -14- not only not necessary but also had to be avoided.
26. Accused Veena in her disclosure statement has stated that she has purchased the girl for Rs.20,000/- and shared Rs.10,000/- with her brother and girl would in future would be used for prostitution and she can get recovered the child. Similar disclosure statement was made by Ashok @ Pappu. As per seizure memo Ex.PW-7/J, it finds mentioned that Veena alongwith her brother Ashok @ Pappu get recovered the girl aged about 5 years whose name is disclosed as 'M' (name withheld). It is true that the portion of confessional statement of the accused to the effect that they had purchased the child for Rs.20,000/- and would be used the child in the prostitution is hit by S. 25 and S. 26 of Indian Evidence Act. However, portion of the disclosure statement which leads to the discovery of the fact is admissible u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore it is proved that the child was recovered from the custody of the accused persons and they had knowledge of the same. Therefore prosecution has succeeded in proving the following facts :
i. The child 'M' (name withheld) went missing on 7.7.2009 aged about 4 years from Sultanpuri Delhi;
ii. the child was recovered at the instance of accused Ashok @ Pappu and Veena on 8.5.2010 from Village Sodawas Rajasthan;
iii. the child was in trauma and on account of her tender FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 14 of 23 -15- age the statement of the child u/s 164 Cr.PC could not be recorded;
iv. the child was rightly not examined as witness by the prosecution ;
v. the child was missing for about 10 months and found at the instance of accused.
27. Certain facts are within special knowledge of the accused persons. How the child came in their possession and how the child remained with them. The accused persons never informed the police nor tried to search parents of the child and child went missing from Delhi and was found in Rajasthan which is many kilometer away from where child went missing. The child could not have gone on her own to the said place and therefore this fact was within special knowledge of the accused persons as to how the child has come to their possession. Therefore the burden u/s 106 of Indian Evidence Act shifts on the accused Ashok @ Pappu and Veena to explain how the child came in their possession. They have failed to explain how girl child was found in their possession which is different from boy child and have failed to discharge the burden. It is pertinent to mention here that in connected case FIR No. 150/09, PS Sultanpuri in which all the children who were recovered were girl child. It cannot be a co-incident.
28. Accordingly I am of the opinion that prosecution has succeeded in proving that the child 'M' was missing from her house and FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 15 of 23 -16- later on was recovered at the instance of the accused Veena and Ashok @ Pappu from their possession.
29. Therefore it is proved on record that accused Veena and Ashok @ Pappu had knowledge that the child was kidnapped and being girl child was kidnapped for the purpose of prostitution. Accused Ashok @ Pappu and Beena had knowledge that the child has been kidnapped and wrongfully concealed and confined with intention or knowledge that the child at any age would be employed for the purpose of prostitution. Therefore offence punishable u/s 368 IPC is proved. Further they had obtained the possession of minor girl with intention that minor girl at young age would be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose. Therefore offence punishable u/s 373 IPC also stands proved against both accused persons.
30. However, there is no evidence on record they accused Ashok @ Pappu and Veena entered into conspiracy with accused Shyam Lal.
31. As regards defence of the accused that they were sleeping at their house and were lifted by the Delhi Police and later on falsely implicated in this case, was not substantiated and that of total denial. In the face of the cogent, consistent and truthful testimony of prosecution witnesses, defence of accused does not stand.
32. Accordingly, as per discussion above, I am of the opinion that FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 16 of 23 -17- prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s 368 IPC and 373 IPC against accused Ashok @ Pappu and Veena beyond reasonable doubt. Hence they are convicted for the said offences.
33. Let accused persons be heard on quantum of sentence. Announced in the open court today i.e. on 20.09.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/Delhi 20.09.2012 FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 17 of 23 -18- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 245/09 PS : Sultanpuri (Crime Branch) U/s : 372/373/368/120-B IPC Unique Case ID : 02404R0 165572010 ORDER ON SENTENCE - VEENA 21.09.2012 Pr.: Sh. A. K. Srivasta, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Convict Veena in j/c with Sh. Santosh Singh, Advocate.
Heard.
It is submitted that convict is aged about 40 years, she is married and having one child aged about 25 years. She is gainfully employed as agriculture labourer at her village. She is not a previous convict. She has been remained in judicial custody since the date of her arrest. Therefore, lenient view be taken.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that offence in which convict has been convicted is of grave nature and hence the convict be given maximum punishment.
The human trafficking of girl child is most abominable of the crimes. The traffickers for their small monetary gains not only sell the human body but also forces the child into the prostitution thereby making such person dead in body as well as in soul. The traffickers involves small children in such activity which they are not even aware FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 18 of 23 -19- of at tender age. This not only makes the child their prisoner for life but also looked at in the society as evil. It not only causes a human life a misery which is untold but also leaves the parents of such children in deep hurt. The parents throughout their life searches their beloved not knowing what the beloved child is undergoing. The human traffickers are curse in any society. No punishment provided under any law is adequate to punish such offenders. It is highly shocking that there are still communities in India despite its independence and vow to become modern nation, still practices prostitution is their profession. The dwindling sex ratio against the girl child shows that the girl child is very precious for Indian society and all out efforts are required to be made to protect the child. The inadequacy of law and law enforcing machinery has to be addressed immediately.
In this case the convict has been held guilty for offences punishable u/s 368 IPC and 373 IPC.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and role of the convict, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would met in sentencing the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence punishable U/s 368 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two months.
The convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence punishable U/s 373 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, she FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 19 of 23 -20- shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two months.
The fine, if recovered, shall be paid as the compensation to the victim.
The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict, free of cost. The case property, if any, be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Original document, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 21.09.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 21.09.2012 FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 20 of 23 -21- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 245/09 PS : Sultanpuri (Crime Branch) U/s : 372/373/368/120-B IPC Unique Case ID : 02404R0 165572010 ORDER ON SENTENCE - ASHOK@PAPPU 01.09.2012 Pr.: Sh. A. K. Srivasta, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Convict Ashok @ Pappu in j/c with Sh. Santosh Singh, Advocate.
Heard.
It is submitted that convict is aged about 35 years, he is married and having three children aged about 8, 10 and 11 years. He is sole bread earner of the family and gainfully employed as agriculture labourer at his village. He is not a previous convict. He has been remained in judicial custody since the date of his arrest. Therefore, lenient view be taken.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that offence in which convict has been convicted is of grave nature and hence the convict be given maximum punishment.
The human trafficking of girl child is most abominable of the crimes. The traffickers for their small monetary gains not only sell the human body but also forces the child into the prostitution thereby FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 21 of 23 -22- making such person dead in body as well as in soul. The traffickers involves small children in such activity which they are not even aware of at tender age. This not only makes the child their prisoner for life but also looked at in the society as evil. It not only causes a human life a misery which is untold but also leaves the parents of such children in deep hurt. The parents throughout their life searches their beloved not knowing what the beloved child is undergoing. The human traffickers are curse in any society. No punishment provided under any law is adequate to punish such offenders. It is highly shocking that there are still communities in India despite its independence and vow to become modern nation, still practices prostitution is their profession. The dwindling sex ratio against the girl child shows that the girl child is very precious for Indian society and all out efforts are required to be made to protect the child. The inadequacy of law and law enforcing machinery has to be addressed immediately.
In this case the convict has been held guilty for offences punishable u/s 368 IPC, 373 IPC.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and role of the convict, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would met in sentencing the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence punishable U/s 368 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two months.
The convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 22 of 23 -23- imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence punishable U/s 373 IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two months.
The fine, if recovered, shall be paid as the compensation to the victim.
The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict, free of cost. The case property, if any, be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Original document, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 21.09.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 21.09.2012 FIR No.:245/09, PS: Sultanpuri (Cr. Branch) Page 23 of 23