Delhi District Court
Fir No. 390/14 : State vs Bernard Samuel Etc.: Ps Begumpur on 21 December, 2017
FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur
IN THE COURT OF AMIT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
(NORTHWEST)01 : SPECIAL COURT : POCSO, ROHINI DISTRICT
COURTS: DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 40/15)
State Vs. Bernard Samuel etc.
FIR No. : 390/14
U/s : 376(2)(F) IPC & 6/21 of POCSO Act
P.S. : Begum Pur
State Vs. (1) Bernard Samuel
S/o Benjamin
R/o F6/290, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi and
H. No. 23, Dent Mission Road,
Kiddar Pore, Culcutta.
(2) Ragini Kaul
D/o Sh. S.K. Kaul
R/o GH13, 439,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
Date of institution of case 27.02.2015
Date of arguments : 11.12.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.12.2017
Page 1 of 27
FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur
J U D G M E N T :
1.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.04.2014, father of the victim came to police station and gave his state that his daughter T is a student of classIII and on 03.04.2014 she informed him that last year in the month of August, her music teacher opened zip of her pant and inserted his finger in her vagina (susu karne wali jagah). He alongwith his wife went to the school on 04.04.2014 and talked to the Principal and asked for appropriate action. The Principal spoke to the victim and also got music teacher Bernard Samuel identified from victim and stated that she will bring the matter to the notice of the management. No action was taken. Thereafter, he again visited the school and gave written complaint to the Principal on 11.04.2014 and no action was taken and thereafter he came to police station to lodge complaint. FIR was registered on 16.04.2014 and statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 17.04.2014 where she stated that when she was in classII, her Music Teacher came to her when he was writing on table and put his hand on her Page 2 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur vagina (susu karne wali jagah) and kept his hand there till she kept writing. This was in August, 2013 and she did not inform her mother as she was pregnant. In IIIrd class when she again saw Bernard Samuel, she remembered everything and told her mother. Victim was medically examined where her parents refused for internal examination. Accused Bernard Samuel was arrested and Principal Ragini Kaul was also chargesheeted for the offence punishable u/s 21 of POCSO Act for failure to report the matter to the police. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed and charges punishable u/s 21 of POCSO Act were framed against accused Ragini Kaul, Principal of the school and charges u/s 6 read with Section 5(m) & (p) of POCSO Act were framed against accused Bernard Samuel. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. Prosecution, to prove its case, has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of both the accused persons were recorded u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C. who claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. PW1 is the Accountant from Maxfort School where the Page 3 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur victim was studying. He has proved on record attendance of accused Bernard Samuel as EX.PW1/A, his appointment letter is EX.PW1/B, Attendance register of the victim child is EX.PW1/C, dispatch register vide which correspondence of the accused was sent is EX.PW1/D, Attendance register of the accused for the relevant period is EX.PW1/E, Biodata of accused is EX.PW1/F, Transfer certificate of the child victim from some other school is EX.PW1/G, Admission regsiter is EX.PW1/H, Office order whereby committee was constituted to investigate the case is EX.PW1/J, office order dated 15.05.2014 vide which all the staff members of the music department including accused were called for meeting is EX.PW1/K, Office order vide which Principal/coaccused Ragini Kaul forwarded the complaint of parents with recommendation of dismissal to the management as EX.PW1/L, Biodata of accused Ragini Kaul is EX.PW1/M and complaint of the parents of the victim dated 11.04.2014 is EX.PW1/N. There is no cross examination to this witness by counsel for accused. PW2 is doctor who identified hand writing and signature of doctor Monika who examined child victim vide MLC EX.PW2/A. There is no cross Page 4 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur examination to this witness.
PW3 is the concerned M.M. who recorded statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Certificate of M.M. is EX.PW3/C. There is no cross examination to this witness.
PW4 is the first IO who proved on record DD No. 22B as EX.PW4/A. He further received DD, visited the school, made preliminary inquiry and informed duty officer to send some lady police official for which DD No. 17A EX.PW4/B was prepared. On 17.04.2014, he served a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to the Principal Maxfort EX.PW4/C. He also collected documents EX.PW1/A to EX.PW1/M along with covering letter EX.PW4/D. There is no cross examination to this witness on behalf of accused Ragini Kaul whereas there is no material cross examination on behalf accused Bernard Samuel. PW5 is the second IO who after receiving DD No. 17/A, reached the school, made inquiry and recorded statement EX.PW5/A. She prepared rukka EX.PW5/B and got victim medically examined. She thereafter, recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and got statement of victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. There is no cross examination to this witness on Page 5 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur behalf of accused Ragini Kaul and there is no material cross examination on behalf of accused Bernard Samuel.
PW6 is the duty officer who is formal witness. There is no cross examination to this witness.
PW7 is the doctor who examined accused Bernard Samuel vide MLC EX.PW7/C. There is no cross examination to this witness. PW8 is victim herself who has stated that in August, 2013 accused Bernard Samuel handed over guitar to her and thereafter touched her private parts(vaginal area). She did not inform her mother about this incident because her mother was pregnant. She also did not inform other teachers as she did not have enough courage. In April, 2013, she informed about the incident to her mother when her mother showed her video "Jis main bataya tha ki bachhon ko agar unke sath koi galat harkat hoti hai to use apne mummy papa ko batana chahiye." Thereafter, she informed her mother about the galat kaam committed by accused Bernard Samuel. Thereafter, mother and father contacted Principal and the Principal sent a maid to call her from class and she told the Principal about the incident. Principal did not Page 6 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur take any action. The victim correctly identified both the accused persons in the court. She was cross examined on behalf of accused Bernard Samuel where she denies the suggestion that there are many music teachers in the school. She stated that on the date of incident, she has her music class and after music class she went to her regular class. There were 25 students in the music class. She did not stated her mother nor other students about the incident. She has denied the suggestions that because of misunderstanding she felt that accused Bernard Samuel had touched her private parts. She also denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated both the accused at the instance of her parents. There is no material cross examination to this witness on behalf of other accused.
PW9 is the mother of the victim who has stated that she had a baby in October, 2013 and she used to show video from her mobile phone to the child victim. On 03.04.2014, she had showed video about good touch and bad touch to the victim and after seeing the video the child victim confided her about touching her private parts by music teacher in August, 2013. Victim told her mother that music teacher opened zip of her pant and Page 7 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur inserted his fingers into her vagina after removing her under garment. She also informed her husband who verified the incident from the victim. On the next date, they visited the school and communicated the same to the Principal who called the victim to her room and made inquiries. Principal told appropriate action would be taken but no action was taken. On 11.04.2014, they lodged a written complaint EX.PW1/N but despite that no action was taken and they approached to the police on 16.04.2014. Witness was briefly cross examined. There is no material cross examination to this witness as well.
PW10 is the father of the victim who has deposed similarly on the lines of his wife.
PW11 is the third IO who arrested accused Bernard Samuel after initiation of proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. There is no cross examination to this witness.
3. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for state, Sh. K.S. Verma, LAC for accused Bernard Samuel and Sh. Surender Mandal, counsel for accused Ragini Kaul.
Page 8 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur
4. It is argued by Sh. Surender Mandal, Advocate, on behalf of accused Ragini Kaul that she has been unnecessarily made accused in this case. First complaint with the school was lodged on 11.04.2014. 12.04.2014 was second Saturday, 13.04.2014 was Sunday and 14.04.2014 was holiday on account of Ambedkar Jayanti. Principal referred the matter to the management on first working day i.e. 15.04.2014 with endorsement of dismissal and as such no case is made out against accused Raigini Kaul. In support of his submissions, he also relied upon the judgment : Kamal Prasad Patade V. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., 2016 CRL. L. J. 3759.
5. Ld. Addl. PP for state has stated that prosecution has proved that first complaint was lodged with the Principal of school on 04.04.2014 but she did not take any action till 11.04.2014 and as such she be convicted u/s 21 of POCSO Act.
6. Record shows that first written complaint was given to the Principal Page 9 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur accused Ragini Kaul on 11.04.2014 EX.PW1/N. There is no denial to the fact that 12.04.2014, 13.04.2014 and 14.04.2014 were holidays. Principal referred the matter to the management on 15.04.2014 with endorsement on the documents. These documents were proved by the prosecution itself which shows that Principal accused acted promptly in disposing the complaint referred to her. Otherwise also, even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that she was first approached by parents of the child victim on 04.04.2014, it will take some time for the Principal to verify the facts and refer the matter for further action to the management. Section 19 of the POCSO Act cast a duty on every person to report the matter to the local police immediately as soon as it comes to their knowledge. If this is applied in its strict sense then parents of the victim can also be held liable for commission of offence u/s 21 of POCSO Act. They admittedly did not approach the police till 16.04.2014. It was only because as per them Principal was the appropriate authority, which under Act is not. As the parents also waited for the action against accused Bernard Samuel by the school authority till 16.04.2014, Principal must be making inquiries within the Page 10 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur school to take appropriate action. It cannot be said that she deliberately did not report the matter to the police. The principal run an institution and has to discharge many duties including academic function while managing the school. The complaint dated 11.04.2014 was immediately referred by the Principal to the management for appropriate action and as such prosecution has failed to prove commission of offence u/s 21 of POCSO Act against accused Principal Ragini Kaul. She is acquitted for the charges framed against her.
7. As far as accused Bernard Samuel is concerned, it has been argued that the alleged incident is of August, 2013 and there is delay of almost eight months in reporting the matter and witness is of very tender age and has given same story in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and one recorded in the court and the child of such a tender age is not capable of giving verbatim same story. It has also been argued that in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she recollected the incident in classIII when she again saw accused Bernard Samuel whereas in the court she stated that Page 11 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur she recollected the incident when her mother showed her video about good touch and bad touch and there are contradictions as well in the statements of parents of victim and as such prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Bernard Samuel. It is also argued that in court she has stated that accused Bernard Samuel touched her while giving guitar whereas in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that accused touched her vaginal area when she was writing and this is major contradiction and child cannot be believed.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for state argued that there are minor variation and there was no contradiction and prosecution has proved the charges against accused Bernard Samuel beyond reasonable doubt and he should be convicted.
9. There is no dispute that there is delay in reporting the matter but that has been well explained by the prosecution. PW9, mother of the victim has stated that she had delivered a baby in October, 2013. It means that she Page 12 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur was pregnant in August, 2013 when incident occurred. Child victim has stated throughout that she did not inform her mother about the incident because her mother was pregnant and she did not want to give tension to her mother. The child girl was a sensitive witness and the delay has been explained. There is minor variation in the prosecution case as to how the victim recollected the incident. In the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. victim has stated that she recollected the incident after seeing accused Bernard Samuel again when she was in classIII whereas in the court that she has stated that she recollected, when her mother showed her video about good touch and bad touch. This variation is normal considering the age of the victim who was only a student of classII. Incident was occurred in August, 2013 and she recollected it in April, 2014 and was examined in court in January, 2017 after a gap. There can be minor variations which however are not sufficient to disbelieve her testimony. As far as the fact that whether the incident occurred while she was writing or when accused handed over guitar to her is concerned, there is no contradiction as both can happen simultaneously. Accused might have given the guitar when she was writing. Page 13 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur There is no dispute to the settled preposition of law that conviction can be done on the sole testimony of the victim, if the same is trustworthy. There is no reason for the child victim to falsely implicate her music teacher and there is no suggestion to this effect in her cross examination of the child victim or to her parents as to why they will falsely implicated the music teacher in the offence like this.
10. It is a well settled law that the conviction on the sole evidence of a child witness is permissible if such witness is found competent to testify and the court, after careful scrutiny of its evidence. In case of Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341, it was held that, " A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a Page 14 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his / her demeanor must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored."
11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of UP Vs. Krishan Master, AIR 2010 SC 3071, has been pleased to hold that : "xxx There is no principle of law that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age would not be able to recapitulate the facts in his memory. A Child is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in his life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life. The child may be able to recapitulate carefully and exactly when asked about the same in the future. In case the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, and the same inspire confidence of the Court, his deposition does not require Page 15 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur any corroboration whatsoever. The child at a tender age is incapable of having any malice or ill will against any person. Therefore, there must be something on record to satisfy the Court that something had gone wrong between the date of incident and recording evidence of the child witness due to which the witness wanted to implicate the accused falsely in a case of a serious nature.
xxx"
12. This has to be born in mind that the present case is under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and this act was enacted with the objective that the children of tender age are not abused and their childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and they are given facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in condition of freedom and dignity. The aims and object of the act further consider it imperative that the law operates in a manner that the best interest and well being of the child are regarded as being of paramount importance at every stage, to ensure the healthy physical emotional, intellectual and social development of the child. Page 16 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur The preamble of the Act reads as under : 'An act to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and provide for establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.'
13. Therefore, the act is a special act, which has been enacted bearing in mind the child psychology as well as the latent sexual abuse of children in the society as well as family, which is apparent from the provisions of Section 29 and 30 thereof, which are reproduced as under :
29. Presumption as to certain offences - Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved.
30. Presumption of culpable mental state - (1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state, but it Page 17 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
14. In the light of the aim and objects of the Act and the specific provisions like Section 29 and 30 of the Act, reproduced hereinabove, the presumption of innocence of the accused as is available to him under ordinary criminal jurisprudence is not available, in child abuse jurisprudence and the presumption, if any, available under the Act are to be considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not under the ordinary criminal jurisprudence.
15. Under Section 29, there is presumption of commission of offence against accused and where ever prosecution discharged initial burden, it is for the accused to prove as to why he has been falsely implicated in this Page 18 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur case. Accused has failed to discharge the burden when it was shifted to him by the prosecution.
16. The record shows the charges against accused Bernard Samuel were framed u/s 5(m) and (p) of POCSO Act, punishable u/s 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 i.e. for causing voluntary sexual assault as defined u/s 3. These charges were framed on the basis of complaint made by father of the victim to the effect that music teacher inserted his finger in the vagina of the victim. Statement of the victim however is not to that effect as recorded in the court and u/s 164 Cr.P.C. She has stated that music teacher put his hand at her vagina (susu karne wali jagah) which means accused did not insert finger in the vagina of the victim but simply put his hand on the vagina thereby committed an offence u/s 8 of POCSO Act for sexual assault as defined in Section 7. The charges against the accused were framed for harsher offence i.e. penetrative assault but prosecution has proved the lesser offence i.e. sexual assault. Accused can be convicted for lesser offence when charges for harsher offence has been framed against him. Page 19 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur Prosecution has proved offence punishable u/s 8 of POCSO Act instead of 6 of POCSO Act against accused Bernard Samuel beyond reasonable doubt and accused Bernard Samuel is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 8 of POCSO Act for sexual offence as defined u/s 7 of POCSO Act.
17. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence on 21.12.2017.
(Announced in the open (Amit Kumar)
Court on 18.12.2017) Addl. Session Judge01/
Special Court, POCSO
(NorthWest), Rohini/Delhi
Page 20 of 27
FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur
IN THE COURT OF AMIT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:
(NORTHWEST)01 : SPECIAL COURT : POCSO, ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: DELHI (Sessions Case No. 40/15) State Vs. Bernard Samuel etc. FIR No. : 390/14 U/s 376(2)(F) IPC & 6/21 of POCSO Act P.S. Begum Pur State Vs. Bernard Samuel S/o Benjamin R/o F6/290, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi Also at H. No. 23, Dent Mission Road, Kiddar Pore, Culcutta.
....Convict
21.12.2017
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Pr: Ld.Addl.PP for state.
Convict produced from J.C with Ld. LAC Sh. K.S. Verma Page 21 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE In the present case, the convict - Bernard Samuel has been convicted u/s 8 of POCSO Act for sexual assault upon the child victim, as defined u/s 7 of POCSO Act.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence advanced at Bar by the Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State and learned Legal Aid Counsel, for the convict.
2. The learned Addl. PP has very vehemently argued that convict, who was working a music teacher in Max Fort School, Sector23, Rohini, Delhi, had committed sexual assault upon a minor girl child aged about 7 years in the school itself and that in view of the serious nature of offences, the convict does not deserve any leniency and she prays that maximum sentence prescribed under Section 8 of the Act, be awarded to the convict, so that the same may act as a deterrent for other impending offenders.
3. Per contra, the learned Legal Aid counsel for the convict has argued that convict is an old age person aged about 68 years and he has no one in his family. He further submits that convict is first time offender having clean antecedents and he has remained in Jail for a period of around one month, during trial of the case. Page 22 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur He prays that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a lenient view may be taken in sentencing the convict.
4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Bar by both the sides and to the facts and circumstances of the case in totality. The offence, for which the convict has been convicted in the matter, is highly derogatory. It stands proved that the convict, who was working as a Music teacher in the school, committed sexual assault upon a minor girl aged about 7 years and as such, no ground for leniency is made out. I hereby award the following sentence to convict Bernard Samuel :
(i) For offence u/s 8 of POCSO Act, the convict is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years, along with fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three month.
Benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC be given to the convict.
5. Coming now to the aspect of compensation to the child victim, 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 Page 23 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur the Constitution of India. In a case titled as 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.
6. 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 Page 24 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur 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 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 self respect 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 Page 25 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material 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."
7. Therefore, in order to provide Restorative and Compensatory Justice to the victim girls, I hereby direct learned Secretary, D.L.S.A, North West Distt. to grant compensation of Rs. 5,000/ (Rs. Five thousand only) to the child 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.
8. 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 free of cost to convict against receipt.
Page 26 of 27 FIR No. 390/14 : State V/s Bernard Samuel etc.: PS Begumpur File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Amit Kumar)
(Court on 21.12.2017) Addl. Session Judge
(NorthWest)01
Rohini/Delhi
Page 27 of 27