Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Asha, on 29 January, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No.260/07
State Vs (1) Asha,
W/o Rakesh,
R/o F-19/18, Sector-15,
Rohini, Delhi.
(2) Rakesh,
S/o Radhey Shyam,
R/o F-19/18, Sector-15,
Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No.384/04
U/S : 366/376/368/120-B/34 IPC
& U/S 3, 4, 5, & 6 of I.T.P. Act
PS : Jama Masjid
Date of Institution : 19.2.2005
Arguments heard on : 28.1.09
Order pronounced on : 28.1.09
***
JUDGMENT
Prostitution is the oldest profession prevalent in the Society and even today when Government and Society are making all possible efforts for upliftment of the women and educating them to make them self dependent, this profession is flourishing now in different form. Earlier prostitution was restricted to specific area commonly known as Red Light Area. But now this cancer has spread even to the residential area thus crossing the boundaries of red light area and spreading in such form that even law enforcing agencies may find it difficult to 1 detect prostitution going on in residential flats. This is also one of the case where husband and wife having three children were not only living but also running a brothel in their residence with number of girls indulged into prostitution restricted to one or two. The case FIR No.384/04 PS Jama Masjid was registered on the basis of statement of the victim, a 19 years old young unmarried girl who travelled all the way from Kolkata to Delhi in the hope of a bright future but the accused persons procured her for prostitution and when she was produced before the police, she was pregnant and that unwanted pregnancy was terminated under orders of the Court.
2. Accused Asha and Rakesh have been sent to face trial for committing the offence punishable under Sec.366/376/368/ 120-B/34 IPC & U/S 3, 4, 5, & 6 of I.T.P. Act. As per victim/complainant Smt. Seema Dass, she used to work as Nurse in Kolkata. On 6.12.2004 her neighbourer Deepak met her at Barrack Pur Station and promised her a respectable job in Delhi. She accompanied him to Delhi where he kept her at Bashir Guest House, Jama Masjid and repeatedly raped her. When she asked him to get her some job as Nurse, Deepak took her to one person namely Rakesh at Sector-7, Rohini. There she was forced to indulge in prostitution by accused Rakesh and his wife i.e. accused Asha. She repeatedly requested Rakesh and Asha not to 2 spoil her life but they told her that they had purchased her and she had to follow their command. On 14.12.2004 at about 10.00 am she ran away from their house and requested one Auto Driver to drop her at Railway Station but he preferred to drop her at some Gurudwara and the Gurudwara persons handed over her to the police. On the basis of statement Ex.PW3/A made by the complainant, case was registered against accused Asha and Rakesh and both the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, as accused Deepak remained untraceable, only accused Asha and Rakesh were sent to face trial for the aforesaid offences.
3. After compliance of the requirements of Section 207 CrPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
4. After hearing on the point of charge, both the accused were charged for the offence punishable under Sec.366/368/34 IPC and under Sec.3, 4, 5 and 6 of I.T.P. Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution has examined twelve witnesses in all in support of its case. Accused Asha and Rakesh have also been examined under Section 313 CrPC in which they have denied the case of the prosecution. Accused Asha has stated that the complainant and her brother Deepak came from Kolkata to visit the house of her sister Rakhi at Rohini but her sister had already 3 left the rented premises in which she was residing. The complainant and her brother Deepak requested her to live in her house for two days which she permitted. She and her husband were called to PS Kotwali as after leaving her house the complainant could not find her way. Her husband was contacted by the police as somehow the complainant reached the police and gave his number and later on she and her husband were falsely involved in this case. Accused persons have not led any evidence in this defence.
6. I have heard Sh S.C. Sharma, Addl PP for the State and Sh. J.P. Suhag, counsel for both the accused and also gone through the record carefully.
7. Out of the twelve witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 Ms. Nandita Basu was posted as Reader in Modern Indian Language Department, Delhi University and her services were availed as Interpreter to record the statement of the complainant who was not able to understand Hindi but could understand Bengali only. She has stated that she truly interpreted the version of the complainant before the Ld. Magistrate and her statement in this regard is Ex.PW1/A. She has also proved the statement made by the complainant and translated by her as Ex.PW1/B.
8. PW-12 Sh. Kanwaljeet Arora, the ld. MM who has 4 recorded the statement of the complainant under Sec.164 CrPC has stated that when the application was marked to him for recording the statement of the complainant under Sec.164 CrPC, he directed the IO to arrange for Interpreter and only when the Interpreter was arranged that he recorded the statement of complainant on 4.1.2005 who is Ex.PW1/B and certificate regarding correctness of the statement recorded by him is Ex.PW12/A.
9. PW-3 Ms. Seema Dass, the complainant appeared as a witness on 1.10.2005 before the Court and in the proceedings dated 1.10.2005, it is specifically mentioned that by that time the complainant could understand and speak Hindi so there was no necessity of Interpreter for recording his statement. The complainant has stated that she was residing in Kolkata and working in a Nursing Home. On 6.12.2004 her neighbourer Deepak met her at Barrack Pur Railway Station and told her about job in Delhi on better payment in comparison to Kolkata. On the promise of a good job in Delhi by Deepak, she came to Delhi and stayed in a Guest House and after two days, Deepak took her to the house of accused persons namely Asha and Rakesh who were correctly identified by the complainant to be the same persons who were present in the Court on that day. She has further stated that Deepak left her at the house of the accused 5 persons assuring that he would come later but he never returned. Two other girls were also in the house of the accused persons and many persons used to come to that house and committed rape on her. Those persons also used to pay money to the accused persons for having sex with her without her consent and that money used to be kept by accused persons and she was not paid any money by them. Whenever she protested and complained to the accused persons, she was told that they had purchased her after making payment to Deepak. On 14.12.2006 she ran away from the house of the accused persons and one auto driver left her in a Gurudwara and Head of Gurudwara informed the police. Her statement was recorded by the police which is Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter she was also sent for medical examination. She was also produced before Ld. Magistrate for recording her statement under Sec.164 CrPC. She has also stated that her clothes were seized by the doctor in the hospital and her salwar Ex.PW1 was the same which was seized by the doctor.
10. PW-4 Sh. Hawa Singh is the Care Taker of Nari Niketan, Jail Road who has stated about the detention of complainant in Nirmal Chhaya from 16.12.2004 to 17.1.2005 and that she was pregnant and her pregnancy was terminated in the hospital and that the doctor handed over to him two small sealed foils duly sealed with the seal of CMO/DDU Hospital 6 containing DNA sample alongwith sample seal which he handed over to the IO who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW4/A.
11. PW-10 Dr. Sharda Ghosh, Senior Resident, Lok Nayak Hospital has appeared in the witness box and identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Sachi Gupta on the MLC Ex.PW10/A who prepared the same after examining the complainant. She has stated that Dr. Sachi Gupta has left the services of that hospital.
12. PW-11 Dr. Shashi Lata Kabra has been examined to prove the record in respect of termination of pregnancy of the complainant. She has proved the photocopy of the relevant record as Ex.PW11/A (12 pages) and stated that as per record, medical termination of pregnancy of complainant was done on 15.1.2005.
13. PW-5 SI Harivansh Singh has stated that on 14.12.2004 he was posted at PS Kotwali and on that day, two sewadars of Gurudwara Shish Ganj and one lady produced the complainant before him in police booth near Gurudwara Shish Ganj. He made inquiries from the complainant and recorded her statement Ex.PW3/A and also consulted the senior officers who instructed him to take her to PS Rohini as the case belongs to Rohini. He took the complainant to PS Rohini and the concerned SHO instructed him to go to PS Jama Masjid as preliminary 7 inquiry was made by PS Jama Masjid. Then he took the complainant to PS Jama Masjid where ASI Satpal made endorsement on the statement of the complainant and thereafter he left the PS Jama Masjid.
14. PW-6 ASI Satpal Singh has stated that on 15.12.2004 SI Harivansh Singh came to PS Jama Masjid with the complainant and other staff. He made endorsement Ex.PW6/A on the statement of the complainant and took her to LNJP Hospital with Lady Ct. Champa. After medical examination of the complainant, he obtained the MLC and one pullanda alongwith sample seal was also given to him at LNJP Hospital and thereafter they returned to PS Jama Masjid and the sealed envelope with sample seal was handed over to SI Abdul Kaleem who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter he alongwith SI Abdul Kaleem and Lady Ct. Champa and the complainant went to the house of the accused Asha i.e. GF-34, Sector-7, Rohini and at the instance of complainant, accused Asha was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/A and her personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Thereafter they returned to police station and accused Asha was sent to the lock-up.
15. PW-7 HC Vinod Kumar is the Duty Officer who recorded the FIR of this case on the basis of rukka produced by 8 SI Satpal. He has proved the carbon copy of the FIR as Ex.PW7/A and the endorsement made by him on the rukka as Ex.PW7/B.
16. PW-2 Lady Ct. Champa has stated that on 15.12.2004 she was posted at Ps Nabi Karim and was on night duty at CDCR. She has stated that on receiving information from PS Jama Masjid, she reached JPN Hospital alongwith ASI Satpal where complainant was medically examined and one sealed parcel was handed over by the doctor at JPN Hospital to ASI Satpal and thereafter they all returned to PS Jama Masjid. She has further stated that they visited some Sector in Rohini to the house of the accused and on the identification of the complainant, accused Asha was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/A and she conducted her personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/B.
17. PW-9 is SI Abdul Kaleem who has stated that on 15.12.2004 he was posted at PS Jama Masjid and investigation of this case was handed over to him. He deputed SI Satpal Singh to take the victim for medical examination and after getting the medical examination done, ASI Satpal came to the PS alongwith some pullanda given by the Doctor which was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter they accompanied the victim to House No.34, Ground Floor, Sector-7, Rohini in search of accused Asha, Rakesh and Deepak. Accused Asha was pointed 9 out and identified by the complainant and accused Asha was arrested and her personal search was also conducted and in view of the circumstances narrated by the complainant, he also added Sec.366 and 368 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act and produced accused Asha in the Court and handed over the file to the SHO. He also got recorded the statement under Sec.164 CrPC of the complainant with assistance of Interpreter and obtained copy of the same. He has further stated that on 7.1.2005, he accompanied the SHO to Sector-16, Rohini Main Road where he alongwith Ct. Sarfraj apprehended the accused Rakesh on the basis of secret information. Accused Rakesh was interrogated and arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A2 and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/A1. Accused Rakesh has also made disclosure statement which is Ex.PW9/D.
18. PW-8 Inspector Giri Raj Singh has stated that on 20.12.2004 while he was posted at PS Jama Masjid, the file was transferred to him for further investigation by Addl. SHO Darshan Singh. On 22.12.2004 he recorded the statement of complainant. On 7.1.2005 accused Rakesh was arrested from Main Road, Sector-16, Rohini on the basis of secret information. He has further stated that he sent SI Abdul Kaleem for getting the statement of the complainant recorded before the Court of 10 MM and also made efforts to search accused Deepak who remained untraceable due to incomplete address. He has further stated that he arranged for the return of the complainant to her native place and after completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet.
19. Sh. S.C. Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that from the statement of the complainant, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that she was brought from Kolkata to Delhi by one Deepak who remained untraceable, assuring some good job on higher salary but here she was sold to the accused persons who were running a brothel and compelled her to indulge in prostitution and the accused persons were surviving on her earning through prostitution as well as of some other girls kept there for that purpose and in the circumstances, the case against the accused persons stands proved beyond reasonable doubt and accused persons be convicted for the offences complained of.
20. On behalf of accused persons, Sh. J.P. Suhag, Advocate has contended that in the instant case statutory requirements in cases under ITP Act has not been complied with and investigation has not been conducted by a person of the rank of Inspector nor any social worker was associated, hence on this ground alone accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. Ld. 11 Defence counsel has further contended that except the statement of complainant, there is no material on record to prove the allegations against the accused persons that they compelled her to indulge in prostitution or they were living on such earnings. It has been further contended that the accused persons had given shelter to the complainant as she came to meet her sister who had already vacated the house where she was earlier living and the accused persons were called to the Police Station only because the complainant knew their telephone number and had no other place to go or person known to her and when the accused persons went to the police station, Deepak was not there and only complainant was there and by recording her manipulated statement, the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. Ld. Defence counsel has further contended that there are lot of improvements in the statement of the complainant which have been duly confronted by putting to her statement recorded under Sec.164 CrPC and her testimony is not reliable so as to prove the guilt of the accused persons. It has been further contended that the accused persons are having school going children and it is highly improbable that the couple would keep the girls in their house and run a brothel in their flat in the presence of their own children. Ld. Defence counsel has prayed for acquittal of the accused persons.
12
21. I have considered the rival contentions. So far as contention of ld. Defence counsel that statutory requirements have not been complied with is concerned, it is not a case where raid was conducted by the police party rather the entire case of the prosecution is that on getting opportunity, the complainant ran away from the house of the accused persons and asked one Auto Driver to drop her at the Railway Station but instead of leaving her at the railway station, he dropped her near Gurudwara. It was only on the basis of information received from Gurudwara that the police initiated action. So on this ground, the accused cannot take any benefit.
22. It has come on record that at the time of making complaint before the police, the complainant was knowing Bengali only and even her statement under Sec.164 CrPC could be recorded through Interpreter PW-1 Ms. Nandita Basu. It was only when the complainant appeared and examined as witness on 1.10.2005 that she informed the Court that she could understand and speak Hindi thus dispensing with the requirement of Interpreter. It is established on record that the complainant was a stranger in Delhi and had no place to go. A promise of bright future and prosperous life made her to accompany Deepak to Delhi who left her with the accused persons and after making promise to return, he never returned. It is specifically stated by 13 the complainant that the accused persons who are husband and wife were keeping two other girls already in that house and persons used to visit that house and committed rape on her after paying money to the accused persons. She has specifically stated that those persons used to have sex with her without her consent after paying money to both the accused persons who had been keeping that money with them and whenever she protested and complained to the accused persons, they told her that they had purchased her after making payment to Deepak. Although she has been confronted with her complaint Ex.PW3/A, supplementary statement Ex.PW3/DA and statement under Sec.164 CrPC Ex.PW1/B wherein she did not state that those persons were paying money to both the accused persons. A reading of all the three statement shows that in all the three statements, he has stated that she was brought to Delhi by Deepak who has remained untraceable and he left her at the house of accused persons who forced her to indulge into prostitution and were making money by inviting or calling the persons from outside to have sex with her against her wishes. There is no material contradiction in the three statement i.e. complaint Ex.PW3/A, supplementary statement Ex.PW3/DA and statement under Sec.164 CrPC Ex.PW1/B which has been confronted to her during cross examination so as to discard her 14 testimony. The Law is well settled that it is not every contradiction the benefit of which can be taken by the accused. In the case State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 following guidelines have been laid down by the Apex Court for the appraisal of the evidence :
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw backs and infirmities, pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether, it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies of trivial matter, not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentence torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of evidence as a whole."
Their Lordships further observed :
"unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention, and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross-examination is an unequal dual between the rustic and refined lawyer."
23. In the instant case, accused Asha has been arrested from her house on the pointing out of complainant and her 15 husband had been arrested subsequently. The statement of the complainant who was a victim also does not require any corroboration. Though the allegation of rape are not against the accused in this case but so far as the fact that she was subjected to sexual intercourse against her will by inviting customers and charging from them is sufficient to establish that she was sexually assaulted against her wishes repeatedly making her pregnant, requiring corroboration was amount to adding insult to injury. If judgment is need on this point, reliance can be placed on State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :-
"The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which has no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to thrown out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases 16 amount to adding insult to injury."
24. Here the complainant could not have any grudge against the accused persons had it been like that she was given shelter by the accused persons for the reason that she came to visit her sister Rakhi at Rohini who had already vacated the premises and she had no other place to go. It is relevant to mention here that in their statement under Sec.313 CrPC, both the accused persons have stated that complainant alongwith her brother Deepak came to Delhi from Kolkata to visit the house of her sister Rakhi at Rohini but her sister had already left the rented premises in which she was residing and that on the request of complainant and her brother Deepak, they permitted them to live in their house for two days. After the complainant alongwith Deepak left their house, they could not find their way but managed to reach at the police station and gave their number as they had no other known person in Delhi and when accused Asha contacted the police, she was falsely implicated in this case and later on her husband was also taken by the police from his house and falsely implicated in this case.
25. During cross examined by accused persons, no question has been asked from the complainant that she had any sister with the name Rakhi living in Rohini, Delhi or that Deepak was her brother. It is not even mentioned by the accused persons 17 as to how Rakhi was known to them, in which house she was residing, when she vacated that house and how Deepak and complainant happened to reach the house of the accused persons. Even otherwise when the complainant came to Delhi, she was unmarried girl but at the time of registration of this case, she was found pregnant and her pregnancy was terminated by the order of the Court. The suggestion given by the accused persons to the complainant is that after Deepak left her at the house of the accused persons telling that he would take a house on rent in a day or two but did not return and the accused persons asked her to arrange a house and they were having family to support which annoyed the complainant and she lodged a false report against the accused persons. The defence of the accused persons is not only highly improbable but the mere fact that different stands have been taken by them while cross examining the complainant and while making statement under Sec.313 CrPC is itself a ground to disbelieve their defence. The contention of ld. Defence counsel that accused persons who are husband and wife had three grown-up children and how it is possible to run a brothel in the presence of three children is concerned, first of all it is the morality of the person running a brothel to see what kind of environment he wants to give his children. When husband and wife both are living on the earning of prostitution, it is for 18 them to decide whether they want their children to join their profession. Even otherwise it is not the case of the accused persons that it was the one room flat and any residential unit having more then one room can be used for 'residential' as well as for 'commercial' purpose which unfortunately in the given case is running a brothel.
26. From the statement of PW-5 SI Harivansh Singh, it is proved that he was posted at PP Shish Ganj when two sewadars of Gurudwara Shish Ganj and one lady produced the complainant before him and he made inquiries and informed the superior officers and further action was taken in the matter as per directions of the SHO. Thus, it is established that complainant could get police assistance through Sewadars of Gurudwara Shish Ganj.
27. For a lady who was not having even a single known person in Delhi, she had two options i.e. either to accept her destiny as prostitute to be exploited by the accused persons physically, mentally and economically or to run away from their house in the hope that she would be able to return home. It was only because of presence of mind of the Auto Driver who dropped her at Gurudwara Shish Ganj that she did not fall in the hands of another prostitution racket but came in safe hands of Sewadars at Gurudwara and police thus could return home. In 19 such circumstances, there was not even remote possibility of the false implication of the accused persons by her with whom she had stayed in Delhi. The mere fact that she named the accused persons in her complaint, pointed out their house and specifically stated that the house was being used a brothel and the accused persons were charging money from customers for having sex with her against her wishes and that they procured her through Deepak for sake of prostitution and living on her earning through prostitution does not require any corroboration as her statement is not only reliable and trustworthy but also does not suffer from any kind of infirmity.
28. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons that accused persons had been allowing their premises i.e. F-19/18, Sector-15, Rohini as brothel and were also living on the earning of prostitution by charging from the customers for having sex with the complainant and retaining the money with them and had procured the complainant after she was brought to Delhi from Kolkata by one Deepak who left her with them. Since there is no evidence against these accused persons that they had abducted the complainant with intention that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or that they had concealed or confined her with the knowledge that she 20 had been abducted by Deepak nor requirements of Sec.6 of ITP Act are satisfied, both the accused are acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 366/368 IPC and under Sec.6 of ITP Act.
29. Thus, both the accused persons are held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.3, 4 and 5 of ITP Act and convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open Court 28.1.2009 ( PRATIBHA RANI ) ASJ-01(Central)/Delhi IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI, 21 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI SC No.260/07 State Vs (1) Asha, W/o Rakesh, R/o F-19/18, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi.
(2) Rakesh, S/o Radhey Shyam, R/o F-19/18, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No.384/04 U/S : 3, 4, & 6 of I.T.P. Act PS : Jama Masjid Arguments heard on : 29.1.09 Order pronounced on : 29.1.09 *** ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard the convicts and their counsel Sh. J.P. Suhag, Advocate on the point of sentence. Sh. S.C. Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for State has also made submissions.
2. Sh. J.P. Suhag, Advocate for the convicts has contended that the convicts are first time offenders. They have three children i..e one married daughter and two sons aged about 17 years to support and there is none to take care of them as both the convicts are from West Bengal and they had no acquaintance in Delhi. It has been contended that atleast for the sake of children of the convicts, a lenient view may be taken and a 22 chance be given to them to reform themselves and be released on probation. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon H.P. Vaid Vs. Mrs. Parveen Soni & Ors 1999 (50) DRJ, Aitha Chander Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1961 (Supp) SCC 17, Rajinder Singh Vs. State 1997 JCC 98 and Daljit Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab through Secretary Home Affairs V (2006) SLT 569 in support of his contention.
3. Sh. S.C. Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP has prayed for awarding of maximum sentence to the convicts who despite having their own children did not hesitate in indulging a young girl of 19 years into prostitution by running a brothel at their own house.
4. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the convicts as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for State. In the instant case, the victim was a 19 years old unmarried girl who was working as nurse in Kolkata. A nurse who was healing the wounds of other persons has been given deep wounds by the convicts which no medicine can heal. The convicts themselves being from West Bengal should have protected the young girl like their own daughter but instead of that they compelled her to indulge into prostitution and were living on her earnings. The fact that they converted their own house into brothel was harmful not only to their own children but even to the neighbourers. 23
4. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offences committed by the convicts and that the minimum sentence has been provided by the Statute, the prayer for release on probation is declined. Both the convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.3 of ITP Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Convicts Asha and Rakesh are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.4 of ITP Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Convicts are is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence punishable under Sec.5 of ITP Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone by the convicts during investigation/trial of the case, if any, shall be set off under Sec. 428 CrPC. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open Court 29.1.2009 ( PRATIBHA RANI ) ASJ-01(Central)/Delhi 24 25 26