Delhi District Court
State vs . Harnam Singh on 20 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - II (NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 260/06
Unique Case ID No. 02401R0002212003
State Vs. Harnam Singh
S/o Dharam Pal
R/o D-101 Jhuggi
Subhash Nagar Mor,
Mukherjee Park,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No. 709/03
Police Station Tilak Nagar
Under Section 363/366/506/509 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court: 8.12.2003
Date of which judgment reserved: 8.4.2010
Date of which judgment announced: 4.5.2010
JUDGMENT:
As per the allegations, on 17.9.2003 at 7.30 am from Tilak Nagar Market accused Harnam Singh along with three other persons kidnapped "N" (name of the prosecutrix has been changed) from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent. It is further alleged that he along with other three persons took her forcibly to Gurdwara Bangla Sahib Park with intention that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it likely that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Further, as per the allegations the accused criminally intimidated the prosecutrix with a threat to kill her and her brother and on 14.8.2003 he had used words gestures and act by showing naked pictures and obscene gestures intending to insult the modesty of the prosecutrix.
BRIEF FACTS:
The case of the prosecution is that on 17.9.2003 Ct. Tilak Raj was posted at PS Parliament Street and was on duty at Bangla Sahib Gurdwara. In the afternoon when he was in the park of Gurdwara Bangla St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 1 of 13 Sahib one girl i.e. the prosecutrix 'N' who was in school uniform and whose name he came to know later on, called him and told that the accused Harnam Singh had brought her under the fear from the area of Tilak Nagar. Thereafter the accused was apprehended by Ct. Tilak Raj and an information was sent to police station Parliament Street. On receipt of this information SI Pratap Singh and Lady Ct. Neetu reached at the picket and took both the prosecutrix 'N' and accused Harnam Singh to Police Station Parliament Street where a Zero FIR was got registered since the case pertains to Police Station Tilak Nagar. Thereafter the accused and the prosecutrix were medically examined and taken to Police Station Tilak Nagar after which the accused was arrested.
CHARGE:
After hearing the arguments, the Ld. Predecessor of this court has framed a charge under Section 363/366/506(2)/509 IPC against the accused Harnam Singh to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses.
Eye Witnesses/ Public Witnesses:
PW1 "N" is the prosecutrix in the present case. She has deposed that she is studying in 12th class in Govt. Girls Sen. Sec. School No.1, Tilak Nagar, Delhi and at the time of alleged incident she was studying in 11th class in the same school. She has also stated that she used to go to her school by scooter and rickshaw and at the time of the alleged incident she was going to her school on cycle rickshaw. PW1 has further deposed that at about 7.30 am when she reached at Tilak Nagar at about 7.40 am and when the accused Harnam Singh along with three other persons were already present there. She has further deposed that she knew the accused Harnam Singh as he was his neighbourer and used to tease her earlier to the alleged incident when she used to go and come back from her school, he showed her naked photographs and also St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 2 of 13 when she was standing in front of her house. She has deposed that accused Harnam Singh made bad signals to her and that her rickshaw was stopped by the accused and his three colleagues were standing with the accused. According to her, accused Harnam Singh had caught hold her hand and forced her to accompany with him and also given threats to her and had told to her that he will spoil her life and also commit rape upon her if she refused to accompany him. She has deposed that she was forced by the accused to accompany him and she was taken to Bangla Sahib Gurdwara forcibly and she made to sit in the park. She has further deposed that she started weeping in the park and certain police officials were present in the park and she called out them and narrated all the facts to them. She has deposed that one lady police official was called by these male police officials and her parents were informed by the police and also reached in the police station. She further deposed that the FIR was registered and the same was sent to PS Tilak Nagar and she put her signatures on Ex.PW1/A. She further deposed that she was taken to Lady Harding Hospital where she was medically examined. According to her, the accused proposed to marry with her when she was taken to the park and accused also told to her that he will keep her happy after marriage. She has also deposed that earlier a complaint Ex.PW1/C was given by her to SHO, PS Tilak Nagar and she identified the same as mark A. She further deposed that she was produced before the Ld. MM where her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/B was recorded.
In her cross-examination PW1 has deposed that there were 4/5 persons present in the marked when she tried to raise alarm at the time of incident. She has further deposed that she did not have to wait at the bus stand and as soon as she was taken to the bus stand, she was made to sit in the bus. According to her, it took about one hour for reaching Bangla Sahib and when the accused was taking her to by holding her hands, she seen a police person and called him. She has further deposed that the accused had taken her to lonely places for two hours after reaching at Gurdwara. She has admitted that the house of the accused is adjoining her house. The witness has deposed that her father is a fruit seller who used to put the mangoes in the gali. She is not aware if the mother of the accused had lodged the complaint against her mother St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 3 of 13 but according to her, the same was lodged prior to registration of this case. According to the witness she got admission in the school when she was 3 years old and has never failed in any class. According to PW1, her date of birth is 1.4.1988 and on the date of incident she was in school uniform.
PW5 Smt. Savitri is the mother of the prosecutrix who has deposed that her daughter who is aged about 15 years, went for school on 17th September at about 7:40 am. According to her, at about 1:00 pm she came to know that her daughter was taken by the accused Harnam Singh in the park near Bangal Sahib Gurdwara and was apprehended by the police after which she alongwith her son Vijay Kumar went to PS Parliament Street. She has deposed that she had handed over to the IO photocopy of the school admission card of her daughter wherein the date of birth of her daughter is mentioned as 1.4.1988. The photocopy of the school admission card is Ex.PW5/A. The witness has specifically deposed that the accused had been previously married twice and used to harass her daughter and stop her on the way and talk obscene. She has deposed that her daughter made complaints to the police but due to the intervention of the neighbours no action was taken by the police and on 17.9.2003 he had enticed away her daughter with the intention to commit rape upon her.
In her cross-examination the witness has stated that she has 5 children and the eldest son Vijay is aged about 28 years, second is Sanjay, then a child who died after birth, third child is Rameshwar, the 4th child is the prosecutrix 'N' and the youngest is Sonu. According to her she was married which she was 14 years old and Vijay was born 5 years after the marriage. She has denied that two days prior to the incident, Smt. Kamla i.e. the mother of the accused had lodged a complaint against her in police station.
PW7 Nar Singh Pal is the father of the prosecutrix who has deposed that on the date of incident he was away to his native village and returned to Delhi on 18.9.2003 when he came to know that accused Harnam Singh had taken away his daughter and had been arrested by the police of Parliament Street police station. According to him, in the St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 4 of 13 past also the accused had been misbehaving with his daughter and used to tease her and conduct himself obscenely with her.
In his cross-examination the witness has stated that they had made the complaints in the police station regarding eve teasing by accused to his daughter even before 17.9.2003 and he had also gone to the PS alongwith his daughter to make the complaint against the accused. He is not aware whether the mother of the accused Harnam Singh made complaint against them in the police station.
Police witnesses:
PW2 ASI Daya Kishan is the Duty Officer who has proved that on 17.9.2003 at about 9:00 pm SI Pratap Singh had come to the police station accused and prosecutrix and gave a copy of FIR no. 0/03 dated 17.9.2003 PS Parliament Street. He has deposed that on the basis of the same he had registered the present case vide FIR No. 709/03 copy of which is Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Inspector Pratap Singh has deposed that on 17.9.2003 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Parliament Street and on receipt of DD no. 11A, he along with lady Constable Neetu reach at Gurdwara Bangla Sahib where Ct. Tilak Raj produced the accused Harnam Singh along with the prosecutrix. He has proved having recorded the statement of the prosecutrix which is Ex.PW1/A and made his endorsement on the same which is Ex.PW3/A. According to him, he took the prosecutrix and the accused to the Police Station Parliament Street and rukka was handed over to the Duty Office for registration of Zero FIR. He has further deposed that after registration of FIR he alongwith W-ASI Sushma reached Lady Harding Medical College and Smt. S.K. Hospital for medical examination of the prosecutrix and the accused. PW3 has also proved that he took the accused and the prosecutrix to police station Tilak Nagar alongwith the Pulandas and MLCs and carbon copy of Zero FIR and rukka which were handed over to the duty officer.
In his cross-examination the witness has stated that accused Harnam and prosecutrix were present in the police booth with Constable and he did not recover any bag or books from the possession of the St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 5 of 13 prosecutrix. He has further stated that no photographs were recovered from the possession of accused Harnam Singh.
PW4 ASI Jagbir Singh is the duty officer posted in PS Parliament Street. He has stated that on 17.9.2003 SI Pratap singh handed over a rukka to him for registration of the FIR and since the incident pertains to PS Tilak Nagar he recorded Zero FIR carbon copy of which is Ex.PW4/A. He has proved that after registration of the FIR, the Zero FIR along with the rukka was handed over to SI Pratap Singh who took the accused Harnam Singh and prosecutrix 'N' to PS Tilak Nagar.
PW6 Ct. Rambir Singh has deposed that on 17.9.2003 he was posted at Parliament Street and was on emergency duty when Beat Constable Tilak Raj from Gurdwara Bangla Sahib telephonically informed the Duty Officer at PS Parliament Street that a boy and a girl had been apprehended at the park of Gurdwara. According to him, DD no. 11A was recorded to this effect and he alongwith SI Pratap Singh reached the police post at Gurdwara Bangla Sahib where the girl and the boy namely Harnam Singh were apprehended and brought to PS Parliament Street. PW6 has further proved that statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and a Zero FIR was registered and accused and the girl were taken to Lady Harding Hospital for their medical examination after which they were taken to PS Tilak Nagar.
In his cross-examination the witness has stated that he remained at the Gurdwara for about 15 minutes but he does not remember if anyone fro the family of the accused or the girl had reached PS Parliament Street.
PW8 Lady Ct. Minakshi has deposed that on 17.9.2003 she was posted at PS Tilak Nagar when SI Pratap Singh of PS Parliament Street came to PS Tilak Nagar along with the prosecutrix 'N' and accused Harnam Singh. She has proved that the prosecutrix was put under her custody and accused Harnam Singh was handed over in the custody of Ct. Vajinder and necessary documents were handed over to ASI Daya Kishan. According to her, after registration of the FIR at PS Tilak Nagar, further investigations were handed over to SI Balihar Singh who arrested the accused Harnam Singh and the prosecutrix was handed over to her St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 6 of 13 mother. She has admitted that a lady Constable accompanied SI Pratap Singh and the prosecutrix.
In her cross-examination the witness has deposed that the prosecutrix was not carrying any personal articles when she was brought to the PS and no memo of her articles were prepared in her presence.
PW9 Ct. Tilak Raj was on duty at Bangla Sahib Gurdwara on 17.9.2003 when in the after noon in the park of Gurdwara one girl whose name he came to know later on, who was in school uniform called him and told that the accused Harnam Singh had brought her under fear from the area of Tilak Nagar. The witness has deposed that he thereafter apprehended the accused and kept him in the police picket and informed the duty officer at PS Parliament Street pursuant to which SI Pratap Singh and Lady Ct. Neetu came to the picket and conducted further investigations.
In his cross-examination the witness has stated that he had told the investigating officer that the prosecutrix was in school uniform. He is not aware if the statement of the accused and the prosecutrix were recorded in the Gurdwara by the investigating officer nor is he aware if the investigating officer sent any information to the parents of girl. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had produced before him, the bus ticket from Bharatpur, Rajasthan to Delhi which he destroyed.
PW10 HC Vijender Singh has proved that on 17.9.2003 when he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar, SI Pratap Singh and L. Ct. Neetu of Delhi Home Guard and Ct. Rambir came to the police station with prosecutrix 'N' who was in school uniform along with accused Harnam Singh. According to him, thereafter duty officer registered the FIR after which the accused was handed over to him and the prosecutrix was handed over to L. Ct. Minakshi.
PW11 Lady Ct. Neetu has proved that on 17.9.2003 while she was posted as Ct. Home Guard in PS Parliament Street, the prosecutrix 'N' was handed over to her custody who along with the accused Harnam Singh brought to PS Tilak Nagar alongwith SI Pratp Singh and Ct. Rambir. She has further stated that she handed over the St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 7 of 13 custody of the prosecutrix 'N' to Lady Const. Minakshi.
PW12 SI Kashmiri Lal has proved that on 18.9.2003 the investigations of this case were handed over to him. He has deposed that he took the prosecutrix 'N' to Tis Hazari Courts and moved an application Ex.PW12/A for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was marked to Ld. Link MM. He has further deposed that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and he obtained a copy of the same vide his application Ex.PW12/B. PW13 SI Balihar Singh is the investigating officer in the present case who has deposed that on 17.9.2003 while he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar, Duty Officer ASI Daya Kishan handed over to him copy of the FIR along with three sealed pullandas, one MLC of Harnam Singh, one MLC of the prosecutrix 'N' and Zero FIR of PS Parliament Street. According to him, lady Ct. Minakshi and Ct. Vijender also came in his room along with the duty officer and produced the prosecutrix and accused Harnam Singh who were brought from PS Parliament Street. The witness has proved having seized the pullandas vide memo Ex.PW13/A; having arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW13/B and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW13/C. According to the witness, he recorded the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix who was thereafter handed over to her mother. He has also deposed that on 18.9.2003 he alongwith the complainant and her mother Smt. Kasturi reached at the spot i.e. Tilak Nagar market where he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW13/D and tried to search out other accused and rickshaw puller but not found. He has further stated that he handed over the case file to SI Kashmiri Lal for getting recorded the statement of the prosecutrix who handed over the same to him after getting recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. The investigating officer has proved having recorded the statements of the various witnesses and after completion of investigations, having filed the challan in the court through SHO.
In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that the mother of the prosecutrix was present in the police station when her statement was recorded but in a separate room. According to him, the prosecutrix was in school uniform.
St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 8 of 13 Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:
The statement of the accused Harnam Singh was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence has been put to him which he has denied. He has pleaded his innocence and stated that the parents of the prosecutrix wanted to grab his Jhuggi and used to quarrel with them and the mother of the prosecutrix was at Gurdwara on the day of incident who got registered false case. However, the accused has opted not to lead defence evidence.
FINDINGS:
I have gone through the evidence on record and considered the submissions made before me. Detail written synopsis of arguments have been filed on behalf of the accused and also on behalf of the State. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has vehemently argued that at the time of the incident that prosecutrix was more than 19 years of age. It is also argued that the prosecution has not proved the school leaving certificate by summoning the school register from where she had studied. Ld. counsel for the accused has also argued that it is settled law that where there are two views are possible then the view which favours the accused is liable to be accepted. According to the Ld. counsel the genesis of the case is that at the time of kidnapping/ abduction of prosecutrix there were three persons. The prosecution has, however, not proved any evidence on record to show that they had tried to trace the other accused persons who were also allegedly responsible for kidnapping/ abduction of prosecutrix from Tilak Magar Market. It is also argued that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and had herself gone with the accused and a conspiracy was hatched by the complainant and her mother to implicate the accused person.
On the other hand the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecutrix PW1 has fully supported the prosecution case wherein she had specifically deposed that the accused had forcibly taken her and used to extend threats and showed her naked photographs in respect of which complaints were lodged earlier to the police. According to the prosecutrix she was hardly aged about 15 years as evident from the school leaving certificate which is a primary evidence and has been duly St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 9 of 13 proved by the prosecution. He has placed his reliance on the case of Arjan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2009 Crl. L. J. 1332.
I have considered the rival contentions. Firstly in so far as the identification of the accused is concerned, there is no dispute and he has been specifically named in the FIR and duly identified by the prosecutrix. The accused is known to the prosecutrix being her neighbour.
Secondly it is evident from the testimony of the prosecutrix PW1 that she had given her date of birth as 1.4.1988 but the prosecution has not been able to place on record any authentic document in the form of Municipal Record, date of birth certificate and the school certificate. PW5 the mother of the prosecutrix namely Smt. Kasturi has produced the admission card of her daughter which is Ex.PW5/A but the exhibition of the same has been duly objected to by the counsel for the accused and therefore, it was necessary for the prosecution to have examined the witness from the school to proved the said admission card which has not been done. Therefore, the said admission card is liable to be rejected. Under these circumstances, this court is required to ascertain the age of the prosecutrix on the basis of the available evidence on record. PW5 the mother of the prosecutrix in her cross-examination dated 15.2.2008 has admitted that when she was married, she was 14 years old and her eldest son Vijay was born after 5 years of marriage and on the date of cross- examination in the court she was about 55 years of age. The prosecutrix 'N' is the 4th child of PW5 and therefore, under these circumstances, even if it is presumed that there was a gap of three years between each child and Vijay who was 36 years of age as on 15.2.2008, the age of the prosecutrix 'N' would not be less than 18-19 years. Further, on the date of incident the prosecutrix was a student of class 11th and according to the prosecutrix, she was admitted in the school at the age of three years which is unbelievable since the minimum age for entry in to the school in Nursery is 4 years and therefore, the inference that at the time of incident she was between 16-17 years of age certainly not less than 16 years. No ossification test of the prosecutrix has been got done and the best witness St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 10 of 13 to prove the admission card i.e. the witness from the school to prove the admission card has not been examined. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the view which is favourable to the accused is liable to be accepted and on the date of incident the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age.
Thirdly the prosecution has proved that both the accused and the prosecutrix were apprehended while they were sitting in the park of Gurdwara Bangla Sahib when the police officials on duty found her present there along with the accused in school uniform. Nothing much has come out from the cross-examination of police witness PW6 Ct. Rambir Singh who was the beat Constable, PW9 Ct. Tilak Raj and PW8 Ct. Meenakshi.
Fourthly it is the case of the prosecution that the accused Harnam Singh had caught hold of the prosecutrix and forced her to accompany him and also used to extend threats to kill her brothers and to spoil her life in case if she refused to accompany him. According to the prosecutrix 'N' she was taken to Bangla Sahib Gurdwara in a bus and thereafter she made to sit in the park in front of the Gurdwara. The story put forward by the prosecutrix that she was forcible made to accompany the accused, does not inspire confidence of the court and the allegations of threat are non specific and vague. In her cross-examination the prosecutrix has deposed that opposite her school there were 4-5 persons in the market at the time when the accused took away. According to her, she had tried to raise an alarm. Had that been the case, a lot of people would have gathered at the place of occurrence which is a thickly populated area being a market. The prosecutrix has tried to give an explanation to the same by stating that while she was being taken to the bus stop from the place of occurrence, the market was closed. There is a distance between the place of occurrence ie. school and the bus stop and the prosecutrix would have met a lot of people and had sufficient opportunity to raise hue and cry which she did not do. Further, she has admitted that she had gone to the bus stop and was made to get into the bus and where there were other passengers besides her but she did not made any complaint to them. Again there was sufficient opportunity to the prosecutrix to raise a hue and cry which she did not do. Thereafter again St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 11 of 13 when she got down from the bus stop at Bangla Sahib Gurdwara she had sufficient opportunity to raise hue and cry which she did not do. A judicial notice can be taken that Bangla Sahib Gurdwara is thickly populated area where there is a police deployment and the prosecutrix had sufficient opportunities to raise hue and cry of her own, which she has not done. The prosecutrix has also admitted that she and the accused were roaming at various places on foot for about 2 hours but even then she did not raise any hue and cry. It was only when the police officials posted at Bangla Sahib Gurdwara saw a school girl in uniform sitting in the park with a young boy and questioned the accused and the prosecutrix, that the prosecutrix made allegations upon the accused. The prosecutrix has further admitted that his father is a fruit seller. She has admitted that the mother of the accused had lodged a complaint against her mother but has neither admitted nor denied the complaint dated 16.8.2003 lodged by the mother of the accused which complaint is Mark D1 and the complaint dated 19.1.2000 which is Mark D2. Further, at the time when the prosecutrix was found with the accused at Gurdwara Bangla Sahib she was not having her school bag or books and no explanation is forthcoming for the same. Therefore, under these circumstances, the allegations that the prosecutrix who was aged between 16-17 years at the time of incident could have been compelled to accompany the accused at various places forcibly, seems improbable. Rather, it is a case where the prosecutrix herself appears to be a consenting party having accompanied the accused of her own.
Fifthly the prosecutrix has also stated that the accused had proposed to marry her when she was being taken to Bangla Sahib Gurdwara and also stated her that she would keep her happy after the marriage. The prosecutrix at the time of incident was a minor below the age of 18 years but above the age of 16 years. Whether she went voluntarily under the dictates of the accused becomes irrelevant as the prosecution has proved that she had been removed from the lawful custody of her parents without their consent and therefore, offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code established, but in so far as the aspect of compelling her to marriage is concerned, the same appears to be improbable.
St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 12 of 13 Sixthly the perusal of the testimonies of PW1 prosecutrix 'N', PW5 her mother Smt. Kasturi and PW7 her father Nar Singh Pal, reveal that they have only orally deposed that the accused used to tease the prosecutrix in her way back from the school and making obscene gestures but despite the fact that they have deposed having lodged a police complaint, all these witnesses later admitted that there was no such complaint made to the police in writing. The accused has on the other hand raised a defence with regard to the malafide intention of the prosecutrix and her family members had an evil eye on his Jhuggi and had been quarreling with his family in this regard even previously. He has in his regard placed on record the complaints made by his mother previously which are Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is not safe to rely upon he oral testimony of all these three witnesses since neither the complaints so made by the family of the prosecutrix nor any witnesses before whom any such complaint was made which was not pressed at the instance of the neighbour has been examined. Further, even the obscene photographs which the accused used to show to the prosecutrix have been placed on record. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove and substantiate the allegations of Section 509 Indian Penal Code.
Lastly in so far as the aspect of threat is concerned the only evidence on record is the oral testimony of the prosecutrix where she does not say that the accused had threatened her with death or grievous hurt. Therefore, under these circumstances, only the provisions of Part-I of Section 506 Indian Penal Code are attracted and not of Part-II.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the charges against the accused in so far as the offences under Section 363 and 506 (Part-I) Indian Penal Code are concerned. However, in so far as the charges under Section 366 and 509 Indian Penal Code are concerned, benefit of doubt is being given to the accused who is hereby acquitted for the same.
Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 14.5.2010.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 4.5.2010 ASJ (NW)-II: Rohini
St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 13 of 13
4.5.2010
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Accused in person on bail.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and
announced in the open court the accused Harnam Singh is held guilty of the offences under Section 363 and 506 (I) Indian Penal Code. However, in so far as the charges under Section 366 and 509 Indian Penal Code are concerned, benefit of doubt is being given to the accused who is hereby acquitted for the same.
Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 14.5.2010.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II (NW): Rohini/ 4.5.2010 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDITIONAL St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 14 of 13 SESSIONS JUDGE - II (NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 260/06 Unique Case ID No. 02401R0002212003 State Vs. Harnam Singh S/o Dharam Pal R/o D-101 Jhuggi Subhash Nagar Mor, Mukherjee Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi FIR No. 709/03 Police Station Tilak Nagar Under Section 363/506/509 IPC Date of Conviction: 4.5.2010 Arguments heard on: 14.5.2010 Date of Sentence: 20.5.2010 ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 4.5.2010, the accused Harnam Singh has been held guilty of the offence under Section 363 and 506 (Part-I) Indian Penal Code and acquitted for the offence under Section 366 and 509 Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Harnam Singh is aged about 27 years and has a family comprising of aged parents, wife and one child aged about 5 years, two married brothers and two married sisters. He is a vegetable seller by profession and is a first time offender. The convict has already remained in Judicial Custody for 4 months and 7 days.
As per the allegations, on 17.9.2003 at about 7:30 am the convict Harnam Singh kidnapped the prosecutrix 'N' from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent and after kidnapping her, he forcibly took her to Gurdwara Bangla Sahib Park with intention that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. It is, further, alleged that the convict Harnam Singh criminally intimidated the St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 15 of 13 prosecutrix with a threat to kill her brother and had also used words, gestures and act by showing naked pictures and obscene gestures intending to insult the modesty of the prosecutrix.
Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict Harnam Singh is residing on rent basis and he is the only bread earning member of his family. It is also argued that the convict is a first time offender and is not involved in any other case. According to the Ld. counsel, at the time of incident the convict was hardly aged about 20 years and the prosecutrix 'N' had gone with her consent as has already been observed by this court. He prays for a lenient view against the convict. The Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that keeping in view the act of the convict, a strict punishment be awarded to the convict and the convict deserves no leniency.
I have heard the submissions made before me. This court has already observed that the prosecutrix who was more than 16 years of age, had gone with the convict with her consent and therefore, the convict has been acquitted for the offence under Section 366 and 509 Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the convict is a first time offender and is not involved in any other case and at the time of the incident was hardly 20 years of age, the interest of justice requires that he should be given an opportunity to reform himself. I, therefore, direct the release of convict Harnam Singh on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
I accordingly direct that the convict Harnam Singh be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of two years with supervision, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In case of any default or repetition of any of the offence (i.e. 363 or 506 IPC), the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years.
St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 16 of 13 A copy of the judgment as well as that of Order on Sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 20.5.2010 ASJ (NW)-II:ROHINI
St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 17 of 13
State Vs. Harnam Singh
FIR no. 709/03
PS Tilak Nagar
20.5.2010
Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Convict in person with Sh. G.S. Sharma Advocate. Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, I direct that the convict Harnam Singh be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of two years with supervision, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one local surety of the like amount and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In case of any default or repetition of any of the offence (i.e. 363 or 506 IPC), the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years.
A copy of the judgment as well as that of Order on Sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II(NW: Rohini 20.5.2010 St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 18 of 13 20.5.2010 (4:30 pm ) File is taken up again on an application filed on behalf of the convict Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Convict in person with Sh. G.S. Sharma, advocate. By way of this application the convict submits that he has not brought his surety today and requests that he may be allowed to furnish his surety bond on tomorrow. On request of the convict, he is allowed to furnish his surety on 21.5.2010.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II(NW: Rohini 20.5.2010 21.5.2010 Present: Addl. PP for the State.
Convict in person with Sh. G.S. Sharma Advocate. The proceedings in respect of the Probation of Offenders Act have been completed and the convict has been sent to the office of Probation Officer for further action in terms of the order dated 20.5.2010.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ASJ-II(NW: Rohini 21.5.2010 St. Vs. Harnam Singh, FIR No. 709/03, PS Tilak Nagar Page No. 19 of 13