Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1). Ajeet @ Tinkoo on 30 April, 2012

                                                      1                  FIR No. 973/2006
                                                                               PS Rohini


          IN THE COURT OF SH MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA : 
      ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV (OUTER DISTRICT) : 
                                       ROHINI : DELHI
                                                         

Sessions Case No. 32/09
Unique I.D No.  02404R0005552009

State                 Vs.   1).   Ajeet @ Tinkoo
                                        S/o Sh. Dharey
                                        R/o P­1/39, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
 
                                 2).  Maya @ Phoolwati              
                                       W/o Sh. Ajay
                                       R/o Jhuggi No. 127, 
                                       Jaipur Golden Hospital,
                                       Rohini, Sector­3, Delhi.



FIR No.                   :  973/2006
Police Station            :  Rohini
Under Sections  :  376/363/328/506/120B IPC 


ORDER ON SENTENCE :



1.

Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 28.04.2012 accused Ajeet @ Tinkoo and accused Maya @ Phoolwati have been convicted for the 1 of 12 2 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini offence punishable u/s 363/34 IPC, accused Ajeet @ Tinkoo has further been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC and accused Maya @ Phoolwati has further been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 328 IPC and u/s 376 r/w Section 109 IPC.

2. Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for convict Ajeet @ Tinkoo submitted that he is aged about 25 years and was working as the daily wage labourer and is unmarried and is having the aged parents to lookafter and was the sole bread earner in the family and is not the previous convict and is running in JC since 16.10.2006. While Sh. A.P. Singh Ld. Counsel for convict Maya @ Phoolwati submitted that she is 26 years of age and is running in JC since 28.05.2010 and is illiterate and is household lady and used to do the cleaning and sweeping work (saf safai ka kaam) in different houses as a maid servant and is having the aged in­laws to lookafter and is not a previous convict. She is having a 4­1/2 years girl child who is with her in jail as there is none to take care of her (girl child), the whole family has been shattered, the future of her child has been darkened. Ld. Counsel for the convicts further submitted that they are having clean antecedents and are the victim of the circumstances and prayed for leniency.

2 of 12 3 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini

3. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for state submitted that convicts be dealt with strictly and severest punishment be given to deter them from committing the same offence in future and no leniency be shown to them. He further submitted that they have committed very serious and grave offence of kidnapping of a minor girl aged about 14 years after administering a 'ladoo' containing some stupefying substance who was repeatedly raped by convict Ajeet @ Tinkoo and was also threatened of dire consequences by the convicts, if the incident was disclosed to anyone.

4. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. Counsel for the convicts Ajeet @ Tinkoo and Maya @ Phoolwati at length on the quantum of sentence. The prosecutrix a minor girl of aged about 14 years was kidnapped out of the keeping of her lawful guardianship by convicts Ajeet @ Tinkoo and Maya @ Phoolwati in furtherance of their common intention after offering a 'ladoo' containing some stupefying substance with intent to facilitate the commission of kidnapping and rape, who was repeatedly forcibly raped by convict Ajeet @ Tinkoo.

5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahdev Vs. Jaibar @ Jai Dev & Ors. 2009 V AD (S.C.) 515 that:­ 3 of 12 4 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini "After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task".

It has been held in State of Karnataka Vs. Murlidhar 2009 IV AD (S.C.) 1 that:­ "The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal".

4 of 12 5 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini

6. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the submissions made by both the convict persons, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice can be met by sentencing convicts Ajeet @ Tinkoo and Maya @ Phoolwati to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/­ each in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two months each u/s 363/34 IPC. Convict Ajeet @ Tinkoo is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/­ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four months u/s 376 IPC. Convict Maya @ Phoolwati is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/­ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two months u/s 328 IPC. Convict Maya @ Phoolwati is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/­ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four months u/s 376 r/w Section 109 IPC. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by both the convicts during the inquiry/investigation/trial of this case shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

5 of 12 6 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini A copy of judgment as well as that of order on sentence be given to both the convicts free of costs.

Announced in the open Court today on 30th Day of April, 2012 (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) Addl. Sessions Judge- IV/Outer Distt.

Rohini/Delhi.

6 of 12 7 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini IN THE COURT OF SH MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - IV (OUTER DISTRICT) :
ROHINI : DELHI Sessions Case No. 32/09 Unique I.D No. 02404R0005552009 State Vs. 1). Ajeet @ Tinkoo S/o Sh. Dharey R/o P­1/39, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
2). Maya @ Phoolwati W/o Sh. Ajay R/o Jhuggi No. 127, Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, Sector­3, Delhi. 
FIR No.                   :  973/2006
Police Station            :  Rohini
Under Sections  :  376/363/328/506/120B IPC 


ORDER ON SENTENCE :
1. Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 28.04.2012 accused Ajeet @ Tinkoo and accused Maya @ Phoolwati have been convicted for the

7 of 12 8 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini offence punishable u/s 363/34 IPC, accused Ajeet @ Tinkoo has further been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC and accused Maya @ Phoolwati has further been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 328 IPC and u/s 376 r/w Section 109 IPC.

2. Sh. Aseem Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for convict Ajeet @ Tinkoo submitted that he is aged about 25 years and was working as the daily wage labourer and is unmarried and is having the aged parents to lookafter and was the sole bread earner in the family and is not the previous convict and is running in JC since 16.10.2006. While Sh. A.P. Singh Ld. Counsel for convict Maya @ Phoolwati submitted that she is 26 years of age and is running in JC since 28.05.2010 and is illiterate and is household lady and used to do the cleaning and sweeping work (saf safai ka kaam) in different houses as a maid servant and is having the aged in­laws to lookafter and is not a previous convict. She is having a 4­1/2 years girl child who is with her in jail as there is none to take care of her (girl child), the whole family has been shattered, the future of her child has been darkened. Ld. Counsel for the convicts further submitted that they are having clean antecedents and are the victim of the circumstances and prayed for leniency.

8 of 12 9 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini

3. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for state submitted that convicts be dealt with strictly and severest punishment be given to deter them from committing the same offence in future and no leniency be shown to them. He further submitted that they have committed very serious and grave offence of kidnapping of a minor girl aged about 14 years after administering a 'ladoo' containing some stupefying substance who was repeatedly raped by convict Ajeet @ Tinkoo and was also threatened of dire consequences by the convicts, if the incident was disclosed to anyone.

4. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. Counsel for the convicts Ajeet @ Tinkoo and Maya @ Phoolwati at length on the quantum of sentence. The prosecutrix a minor girl of aged about 14 years was kidnapped out of the keeping of her lawful guardianship by convicts Ajeet @ Tinkoo and Maya @ Phoolwati in furtherance of their common intention after offering a 'ladoo' containing some stupefying substance with intent to facilitate the commission of kidnapping and rape, who was repeatedly forcibly raped by convict Ajeet @ Tinkoo.

5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahdev Vs. Jaibar @ Jai Dev & Ors. 2009 V AD (S.C.) 515 that:­ 9 of 12 10 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini "After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task".

It has been held in State of Karnataka Vs. Murlidhar 2009 IV AD (S.C.) 1 that:­ "The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal".

10 of 12 11 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini

6. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the submissions made by both the convict persons, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice can be met by sentencing convicts Ajeet @ Tinkoo and Maya @ Phoolwati to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/­ each in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two months each u/s 363/34 IPC. Convict Ajeet @ Tinkoo is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/­ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four months u/s 376 IPC. Convict Maya @ Phoolwati is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/­ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two months u/s 328 IPC. Convict Maya @ Phoolwati is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/­ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four months u/s 376 r/w Section 109 IPC. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by both the convicts during the inquiry/investigation/trial of this case shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

11 of 12 12 FIR No. 973/2006 PS Rohini A copy of judgment as well as that of order on sentence be given to both the convicts free of costs.

Announced in the open Court today on 30th Day of April, 2012 (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) Addl. Sessions Judge- IV/Outer Distt.

Rohini/Delhi.

12 of 12