Delhi District Court
Fir No.374/2014: State vs Pappu: Ps Subhash Place Dod: 10.02.2015 on 10 February, 2015
FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
(NORTHWEST)01: ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: DELHI
(Sessions Case No.100/2014)
Unique ID case No.02404R0131052014
State Vs. Pappu
FIR No. : 374/2014
U/s : 363/376 (2)(f)(i) IPC & Section 5(m) of POCSO Act
P.S. : Subhash Place
State Vs. Pappu,
S/o Shri Ganga Ram,
R/o House No.632, G Block,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
Date of institution of case 06.05.2014
Date of arguments : 04.02.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.02.2015
J U D G M E N T:
The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the record is that complainant, Smt.Madhu had come to reside at her mother's place i.e. House No.626, GBlock, ground floor, Shakurpur, Delhi, alongwith her two children i.e. child victim N (whose identity is not being disclosed in view of the provisions of Section 33 (7) of POCSO Act, 2012), aged about 4 years, and her son, aged about 2 years. She had admitted child victim N in tuition class Page 1 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 in the vicinity. The child victim N used to go for her tuition classes in the evening at about 4:00/5:00 PM. On 14.04.2014, at about 4:00/5:00 PM, the child victim N had gone to play in the gali. The child victim was taken away by accused Pappu, aged about 30 years, to his house No.632, GBlock, Shakurpur, where aggravated sexual assault was committed upon her by him. The child victim N returned back home in the evening in perplexed condition, however, she could not tell as to what had happened to her. On the next day, i.e. 15.04.2014, when the mother of the child victim N was planning to take her to her tuition class in the evening, she got scared. Thereafter, the mother of the child victim N asked her about her fears. After some persuasion, the child victim N communicated to her mother that last evening the accused had taken her to his house, where he had disrobed her and had also taken out his own clothes and had connected his penis with her vagina and had thrown dirty water upon her. The mother of the child victim called her cousin namely Shri Anand at her mother's place because he was residing nearby and thereafter reported the matter at number 100, pursuant whereto ASI Om Pal, Ct.Jai Pal and Lady Ct.Jyoti reached at the spot. In the meantime, the PCR personnel had also sent the report to the local police station, i.e PS Subhash Place, where DD No.68 B was recorded at about 10:10 PM. On the directions of SHO PS Subhash Place, IO WSI Sujata reached at the spot, where she found the officials of PCR present. She also found the accused to have been called by the PCR officials from his residence and he was also present at the spot. IO W/SI Sujata immediately took the child victim N to Bhagwan Mahavir Page 2 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 Hospital alongwith W/Ct.Jyoti and got her medical examination done and after obtaining the MLC came back to the spot and recorded the statement of the mother of the child victim N, prepared rukka and sent Ct.Jai Pal to the police station for registration of the FIR. The FIR in the matter was accordingly registered. Thereafter, the accused was arrested. Statement of child victim N U/s 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded. The accused was also got medically examined. The child victim N was thereafter produced before Child Welfare Committee. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet in the matter was filed.
2. After filing of the charge sheet, copy thereof was supplied to the accused and after hearing arguments on the point of charge, charge U/s 363 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and in alternative charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused on 13.05.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses, whereafter the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused examined two witnesses, i.e, DW1 Smt.Kamla Devi and DW2 Smt.Chaso in his defence.
4. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by the learned Additional PP for the State and Ms.Shardha Garg, advocate, learned counsel for the accused Page 3 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 and perused the chargesheet, statement of witnesses, documents and the evidence recorded in the matter.
5. Before adverting to the arguments advanced at bar, it would be appropriate to have a brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter. The prosecution evidence in the matter can be broadly categorized into following heads:
(a) The evidence of child victim N and her family members;
(b) Medical Evidence and;
(c) Formal and police investigation witness(es).
(a) Evidence of child victim N and her family members:
6. In this category, the evidence of child victim N, examined as PW3; the mother of child victim N namely Smt.Madhu as PW4 and the maternal uncle (mama) of child victim N namely Shri Anand as PW9 is there. The child witness N in her evidence has deposed about the sexual assault inflicted upon her by the accused. The relevant extracts of her evidence are as under:
xxxxx Q. Aap batao kya hua tha?
Ans. Pappu meri chadi me haath daal raha tha. Chus raha tha. Nalke ka paani daal raha tha. Keh raha tha kisiko mat batana.
Court Question: Beta batao Pappu kaha chus raha tha?
Page 4 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 Ans.: The witness has touched her private part with her hand and stated yaha par.
Court Question: Pappu konse nal se ganda pani daal raha tha?
Ans. Wo nal bathroom ke bagal me tha.
Court Question: Wo ganda paani kaha par daal raha tha?
Ans.: The witness has touched her private part with her hand and stated yaha par.
Q. Pappu ne ye sab kaha par kiya?
Ans. Kisi aur ke ghar me legaya tha.
Q. Pappu aapko kahan par mila tha?
Ans. Mein tuition se akar chej lene ja rahi thi tab Pappu mila tha.
Q. Kya aap pappu to jante ho?
Ans. Ha.
Q. Aap pappu to kaise jante ho?
Ans. Usne meri saheli Prachi ke saath bhi aisa kiya tha, meri nani ne dekh liya to usne jhuth bola ki ice cream dilane le ja raha hu. Bathroom ke pass Prachi ke saath aisa kiya.
Q. Pappu ne Prachi ke saath aisa kab kiya tha?
Ans. Bahut din pahle meri nani ne mummy ko
bataya tha.
Q. Pappu kaha rehta hai?
Ans. Hamare ghar ke paas gali mai jahapar chij
ki dukan hai.
Page 5 of 22
FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015
Q. Kay aap Pappu ko pehchan sakte ho?
Ans. Ha.
At this stage, the witness has identified the
accused Pappu, present in court today in police custody. The accused is sitting below behind the wooden partition in last row of chairs in the courtyard.
xxxxx
7. The defence has not disputed the age of child victim N to be four years on the date of incident. From the testimony of child victim N, extracted hereinabove, it has been categorically proved that she had correctly identified the accused to be the person who had inflicted sexual assault upon her. The defence could not shake the veracity of the testimony of child victim N. A specific suggestion was given to child victim N by the learned defence counsel to the effect that she had deposed in the matter on the basis of her tutoring done by her mother. She emphatically denied that suggestion.
8. The mother of child victim N, i.e PW4 Smt.Madhu has also supported the prosecution case in all the material particulars. She has deposed about the condition of child victim N on 14.04.2014, i.e the date when sexual assault was committed upon her by the accused and the mental condition of child victim N on 15.04.2014 when the matter was reported to the police. She has explained the entire process of commission of sexual assault upon child victim N by the accused in the manner which was told to her by the child Page 6 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 victim N herself. She has corroborated the evidence of child victim N in all the material particulars. The defence could not make any dent in the veracity of her evidence.
9. PW9, Shri Anand, the maternal uncle (mama) of the child victim N in his evidence has deposed that on 15.04.2014, at about 9.00/10.00 PM, he was called by PW4. She told him about the sexual assault committed upon child victim N. Thereafter, he informed the police about the said sexual assault.
10. There is clearly no inconsistency in the evidence of aforesaid three witnesses.
(b) Medical Evidence:
11. PW6, Dr.Prabhat examined accused Pappu at about 2.14 AM on 16.04.2014 and he conducted his "potency test" and found him to be "capable of performing sexual intercourse".
12. PW8 Dr.Nikunj Aggarwal is the doctor who examined the child victim N and the accused at first point of time in the intervening night of 15.04.2014 and 16.04.2014. He had referred the child victim N for "internal gynaecological examination" and with regard to accused he had conducted potency test and found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. This witness was not crossexamined by the defence. Page 7 of 22
FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015
13. PW7, Dr.Rakhi Thakur is the gynaecologist to whom the child victim N was referred to for "internal gynaecological examination". Since the mother of child victim N, i.e PW4 (Smt.Madhu) did not accord permission for the internal gynaecological examination of child victim N, the said examination was not conducted upon child victim N. There is justification in PW4 not giving permission to PW7 for internal gynaecological examination of child victim N because the child victim N had not communicated to her about any penetrative sexual assault having been committed upon her by the accused.
(c) Formal and police investigation witnesses:
14. PW5, Ms.Shefali Barnala Tandon, Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate in her evidence has proved the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C of the child victim N, recorded by her as Ex.PW5/B. A perusal of Ex.PW5/B clearly shows that the child victim N had explained the entire process of sexual assault in no uncertain terms before the Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate.
15. PW1, ASI Hawa Singh has proved the FIR in the matter recorded by him as Ex.PW1/D, pursuant to rukka sent by PW10, IO, WSI Sujata.
16. PW2, SI Jagat Singh has proved the receipt of information by PCR and reaching at the spot of ASI Ompal, Ct.Jaipal and Lady Ct.Jyoti pursuant thereto, which factum has not been disputed by the defence. Page 8 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015
17. PW10, WSI Sujata in her evidence has stated about she having been deputed by SHO, PS Subhash Place after receipt of DD No.68B. She got the child victim N and the accused medically examined, recorded the statement of PW4, prepared rukka and got the case FIR registered. She arrested the accused and got the child victim N counselled by Child Welfare Committee, got the statement of child victim N recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C, prepared chargesheet and filed the same in court.
18. In the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C of the accused, he was put all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence recorded in the matter. He denied the prosecution case and claimed himself to have been falsely implicated in the matter, however, he did not specify as to why he has been falsely implicated in the matter. In his defence, he examined two defence witnesses namely DW1 Smt.Kamla Devi and DW2 Smt.Chosar. Both the defence witnesses have failed to depose the false implication of the accused in the matter. DW1 Smt.Kamla Devi has gone on record to say that she did not know that the accused had been arrested in a case of sexual assault and she pleaded that she was not at her residence from 15.04.2014 till 16.04.2014 as her son was lying hospitalized. Whereas, DW2 Smt.Chosar has categorically pleaded ignorance about the registration of present case against the accused. Therefore, the defence witnesses are of no help to the accused and in any case, the accused has not been able to prove his defence Page 9 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 through them.
19. The Ld.Addl.PP for the State has very vehemently argued that through the cogent and trustworthy evidence of PW3, i.e child victim N; her mother Smt.Madhu, i.e PW4 and Shri Anand, the maternal uncle (mama) of the child victim N, i.e PW9, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the commission of sexual assualt upon the child victim N, who is a girl of tender age. The defence has not been able to cause any dent in the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case of aggravated sexual assault against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. Per contra, the learned defence counsel has pointed out some contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which are enumerated as under.
20.(i) It has been argued that an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the prosecution for nonsubjection of child victim N to the "internal gynaecological examination";
(ii) That in her statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C, PW4 had stated that on the date and time of incident, the child victim N was playing in the gali; whereas, in her evidence she has stated that she had come back from the tuition. It is further argued that PW4 has stated that after coming of child victim N from tuition, she had gone to purchase eatables for her and at that time accused had taken away child victim N and committed sexual assault Page 10 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 upon her;
(iii) That in her evidence, PW4 has claimed herself to be illiterate, but she has affixed her signatures on her evidence and as such, she cannot be believed;
(iv) The learned defence counsel has pointed out from the statement of child victim N, recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C, i.e Ex.PW5/B and her statement recorded in court that she has stated that she studies in a school, whereas PW4 has deposed that she has not been admitted to any school.
(v) It is next argued that apparently there is an unexplained delay of about 24 hours in lodging FIR in the matter by PW4.
21. I have considered the aforesaid arguments in the light of evidence recorded in the matter as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case. This court cannot loose sight of the fact that child victim N is a girl of tender age. She has nowhere deposed either to her mother or in her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C or before the court that "penetrative sexual assault"
was committed upon her by the accused, therefore, the decision of PW4, her mother of not according permission for her "internal gynaecological examination" cannot be faulted. Seeing it in typical orthodox Indian scenario also, the refusal of mother in such circumstances cannot be faulted and in any case, in the teeth of unshaken testimony of child victim N, non examination of child victim N gynecologically is not fatal to the prosecution case.Page 11 of 22
FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015
22. As regards the argument of learned defence counsel that there is contradiction in the evidence of child victim N and her mother about what the victim child N was doing at the time when she was taken away by the accused to his residence with the sexual intent to commit sexual assault upon her, I again do not find the said contradiction to be material for the simple reason that both the witnesses have told the date and time of assault correctly. This court cannot loose sight of the fact that the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses had been recorded after six months of the happening of incident and these small variations which do not go to the root of the matter are of no consequence and can be easily ignored.
23. In this regard there is no hard and fast rule that the conviction cannot be based on sole testimony of the victim. The testimony of child victim in the present case clearly brings out the traumatic experience she suffered at the hands of the accused. Even otherwise in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1393, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that in cases involving sexual offences, harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. It was held that : "The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an Page 12 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. It must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may took for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations."
24. As regards the argument of learned defence counsel that the child victim N, i.e PW3 in her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C as well as in her evidence stated that she goes to school is concerned, then we have material on record in the form of testimony of PW4, who has categorically stated that she had got admitted child victim N for evening tuition and the child of tender age, such as child victim N may have the perception of that tuition class to be that of a school and the same cannot be faulted.
25. As regards the delay of about 24 hours in recording the FIR by PW3 in the matter, as argued by the learned defence counsel is concerned, the same is again of no consequences as PW4 has explained the said delay. It has duly Page 13 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 come in the evidence of PW4 that the child victim N after suffering aggravated sexual assault from the accused was in a state of shock, she appeared visibly upset and it was only on the next day of the commission of sexual assault when PW4 asked child victim N to prepare for her evening classes that she got frightened on account of experience of previous evening and when PW4 made her comfortable, then she disclosed her about the sexual assault suffered by her. Thereafter, PW4 called PW9 for consultation with him and only thereafter he called the police. This is again explainable in typical orthodox Indian scenario, where exposing one's daughter before the police even with regard to the happening of sexual assault is still considered a taboo and it definitely takes courage and lot of introspection for a mother to report about sexual assault upon her daughter to the police, as this directly hits at the chastity of child and creates a bad spot on the future of child. It appears that PW4 came out of that psychosis and persuaded herself to report the matter to the police and in the process few hours time had elapsed. Therefore, I do not find that delay in reporting the matter to the police to be fatal to the prosecution case.
26. Therefore, from the unshaken testimony of PW3 and PW4 in the matter, prosecution has been able to prove the kidnapping of child victim N by the accused as well as commission of aggravated sexual assault upon her on 14.04.2004 beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Accordingly, accused Pappu is convicted U/s 363 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Page 14 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015
26. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence on 10.02.2015.
(Announced in the open ) (Vinod Yadav)
(Court on 06.02.2015) Addl. Session Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
Page 15 of 22
FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI (Sessions Case No.100/2014) Unique ID case No.02404R0131052014 State Vs. Pappu FIR No. : 374/2014 U/s : 363/376 (2)(f )(i) IPC & Section 5(m) of POCSO Act P.S. : Subhash Place State Vs. Pappu, S/o Shri Ganga Ram, R/o House No.632, G Block, Shakurpur, Delhi.
....Convict
10.02.2015
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Pr: Ld.Addl.PP for state.
Convict not produced from J.C, however ld.counsel Ms. Sharda Garg is present.
Probation report received from the Probation Officer, Rohini, New Delhi. Same perused.
2. The Probation Officer has recommended giving of benefit of probation to convict on the ground that he is a middle aged person having age of 40 years and belongs to a poor family having responsibility of his family. It is reported that convict is the sole bread earner of his family. It is also reported that according to Page 16 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 neigbhours, conduct and behaviour of convict is normal and he is a helping person. It is also reported that this is the first offence of the convict.
3. Arguments on the point of sentence heard and record perused.
4. Ld. Addl.PP for state submits that convict be given maximum punishment as per Section 363 IPC and 10 of POCSO Act. It is further submitted that crime against girls in the society are on the rise and to send a strong message to the society, convict deserves to be dealt strictly to provide a deterrent.
5. On the other hand, ld.Counsel for convict makes a prayer for taking a lenient view. In support of her prayer for lenient view, it is submitted by Ld.counsel that convict is a middle aged person. It is further submitted that convict belongs to a poor family and has responsibility of his family. It is further submitted that this is the first offence of the convict and therefore he deserves to be treated leniently. Lastly, it is submitted that convict should be given a chance for reformation by giving him benefit of probation as recommended by the Probation Officer, Rohini, Accordingly, a prayer for taking a lenient view is made.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the Ld.APP and of counsel for convict. It is an admitted case that this is the first offence of the convict u/s 363 IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act which is punishable with maximum imprisonment for five years with fine. Convict is stated to be having responsibility of his family. In the Page 17 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 facts and circumstances, having regard to the fact that this is the first offence of the convict, that offence u/s 363 IPC and 10 of POCSO Act is punishable with maximum five years imprisonment, to the economic condition of the convict's family and recommendation for probation made by the Probation Officer, Rohini, therefore, convict deserves to be given a chance for reformation by taking a lenient view. Accordingly, prayer of counsel for convict is accepted. Instead of sentencing the convict to punishment, convict is given the benefit of probation and is directed to file a personal bond of good behaviour and conduct in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year with the condition that he shall remain under the supervision of Probation Officer, Rohini Court for one year and shall report before the Probation Officer once every month and shall not commit similar offence during this period of one year and if any such offence is brought to the notice of this court during this period of one year, then this court will be at liberty to impose appropriate sentence upon the convict u/s 363 IPC and 10 of POCSO Act.
7. Copy of order be also sent to Probation Officer, Rohini Court for compliance.
8. Coming now to the aspect of compensation to the victim, who is a minor girl aged about 4 years, the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again observed that that subordinate Courts trying the offences of sexual assault have the jurisdiction to award the compensation to the victims being an offence against the basic human right and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a case titled as Page 18 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the jurisdiction to pay compensation (interim and final) has to be treated to be a part of the over all jurisdiction of the Courts trying the offences of rape, which is an offence against basic human rights as also the Fundamental Rights of Personal Liberty and Life.
9. Even otherwise, the concept of welfare and well being of children is basic for any civilized society and this has a direct bearing on the state of health and well being of the entire community, its growth and development. It has been time and again emphasized in various legislations, international declarations as well as the judicial pronouncements that the Children are a "supremely important national asset" and the future well being of the nation depends on how its children grow and develop. In this regard reference is made to the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC, 244, that :
"The child is a soul with a being, a nature and capacities of its own, who must be helped to find them, to grow into their maturity, into fullness of physical and vital energy and the utmost breath, depth and height of its emotional intellectual and spiritual being; otherwise there cannot be a healthy growth of the nation. Now obviously children need special protection because of their tender age and physique, mental immaturity and incapacity to look after themselves. That is why there is a growing realization in every part of the globe that Page 19 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 children must be brought up in an atmosphere of love and affection and under the tender care and attention of parents so that they may be able to attain full emotional, intellectual and spiritual stability and maturity and acquire selfconfidence and selfrespect and a balance view of life with full appreciation and realization of the role which they have to play in the nation building process without which the nation cannot develop and attain real prosperity because a large segment of the society would then be left out of the developmental process. In India this consciousness is reflected in the provisions enacted in the Constitution. Clause (3) of Article 15 enables the State to make special provisions inter alia for children and Article 24 provides that no child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. Clauses (e) and (f ) of Article 39 provide that the State shall direct its policy towards securing inter alia that the tender age of children is not abused, that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age and strength and that children are given facility to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material Page 20 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 abandonment. These constitutional provisions reflect the great anxiety of the constitution makers to protect and safeguard the interest and welfare of children in the country. The Government of India has also in pursuance of these constitutional provisions evolved a National Policy for the Welfare of Children. This Policy starts with a goaloriented perambulatory introduction."
10. Therefore, in order to provide Restorative and Compensatory Justice to the victim girl, I hereby direct learned Secretary, D.L.S.A, North West Distt. to grant compensation of Rs. 50,000/ (Rs. Fifty thousand only) to the victim. The said amount shall be used for her welfare and rehabilitation, under the supervision of Welfare Officer, so nominated by the Government of NCT of Delhi.
11. A copy of this order be sent to learned Secretary, D.L.S.A, North West Distt., Rohini Courts, Delhi and Director, Department of Woman and Child Development, GNCT of Delhi, for information and necessary action under intimation to this Court.
12. The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that if he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to Secretary, Delhi High Court, Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyer Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
A copy of judgment and copy of order on sentence be supplied Page 21 of 22 FIR No.374/2014: State V/s Pappu: PS Subhash Place DOD: 10.02.2015 free of cost to convict against receipt.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Vinod Yadav)
Dated: 10.02.2015 ASJ01/Rohini Courts
Rohini : Delhi
Page 22 of 22