Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Subhash S/O Likhi Ram on 5 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SMT. SARITA BIRBAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), EAST,
NORTH EAST & SHAHDARA DISTRICTS, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0150982009
SC No.122/13 Date of assignment : 04.08.2009
FIR No.450/08 Date on which arguments
PS: Nand Nagri were heard : 30.11.2015
U/S: 363/366/471/34 IPC, Date of judgment : 05.12.2015
376/201 IPC
State Versus 1. Subhash S/o Likhi Ram
R/o Village-Orangabad Ristal,
PS-Loni, District-Ghaziabad, UP.
2. Sandeep Kumar S/o Kesraj Singh
R/o Village-Orangabad Ristal,
PS-Loni, District-Ghaziabad, UP.
3. Ashok Kasana S/o Kesraj Singh
R/o Village-Orangabad Ristal,
PS-Loni, District-Ghaziabad, UP.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution is that on 28.09.2008, the mother of the prosecutrix (PW4) came to police post Harsh Vihar under police station Nand Nagri and lodged a missing report (Ex.PW4/A) about her daughter i.e. prosecutrix (PW3- name is not being disclosed in this judgment to conceal her identify). In her complaint, the mother of the prosecutrix alleged that on 25.09.2008, the prosecutrix aged about 16 SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 1 of 41 years went for her English typing classes at Harsh Vihar. Her class was to continue till 5:30 PM but she did not come back to her home. The mother of the prosecutrix expressed suspicion that someone had kidnapped her daughter after enticing her.
2. On the above missing report, the present FIR No. 450/08 under section 363 IPC was got registered at police station Nand Nagri. Efforts were made to trace the prosecutrix. On 03.10.2008, the prosecutrix came to police station with her mother. She was got medically examined at GTB Hospital vide MLC dated 03.10.2008 (Ex.PW3/A). Statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 04.10.2008 (Ex.PW3/B) by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in which she alleged that on 25.09.2008 at about 6:00 PM when she was on her way back to her home after her tuition, she was kidnapped by the three accused persons in a Santro car. The car was aimlessly driven around for sometime and then taken near the canal at Modi Nagar where accused Sandeep and Ashok got down and started taking liquor and accused Subhash raped her in the car. She also alleged that accused Subhash thereafter took her to the house of his sister and then his aunt (mausi) and then illegally confined her at his house at Risthal village (Ghaziabad) for about a week where accused persons and the family members of accused Subhash misbehaved with her. One day i.e. 02.10.2018, accused Subhash and Sandeep were taking her in a black colour Santro car. However, the prosecutrix was able to escape from clutches of the accused persons and reach her home and made a call to SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 2 of 41 her maternal uncle and elder sister. Thereafter mother and sister of the prosecutrix reached the spot from where the prosecutrix had made the calls and she was brought back to her home.
3. Thus section 376/34 IPC was added to FIR. Accused persons were taken in custody. They were got medically examined. One Esteem car bearing registration No. DL-2CZ-8045 allegedly used for commission of crimes of kidnapping and rape of the prosecutrix was seized by the police officials. Further case of prosecution is that during investigation, it was also revealed that accused Ashok and Sandeep are brothers and accused Sandeep had prepared a forged document namely a copy of driving licence by superimposing his own photograph on the driving licence of his brother accused Ashok and had submitted the same to Allied Nippo Limited Company where accused Sandeep was working as a driver in name of Ashok. After completion of investigation, present chargesheet under sections 363/366/471/376/201/34 IPC was filed against all the accused persons.
4. As the major offence in this case is triable by the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 22.07.2009, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed this case to the Court of Sessions and on creation of Special Fast Track Court, this case was assigned to this court.
5. Vide order dated 14.07.2010, a charge under SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 3 of 41 sections 363/366/471/34 IPC was framed against accused Ashok and Sandeep by my learned predecessor. Vide the same order an additional charge under sections 363/366/34 IPC and 376/201 IPC was framed against accused Subhash. Charges were read over to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined nineteen witnesses. Out of them, the prosecutrix (PW3) and her mother (PW4) are the witnesses who have personal knowledge about the fact relating to the present case. PW7 has deposed in reference to the charge under section 471 IPC.
7. PW1-HC Lokesh Giri deposed that on 28.09.2008, he was working as the duty officer at police station Nand Nagri. At about 9:50 AM, Constable Anil handed over a rukka to this witness for registration of FIR. On the basis of the rukka, he registered the present FIR under section 363 IPC. PW1 proved a copy of the FIR as Ex. PW1/A. He also proved his endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/B.
8. PW2-Constable Anil Kumar deposed that on 28.09.2008 at about 9:50 AM he received the rukka from the Investigating Officer at the spot and took the same to police station Nand Nagri for registration of FIR. After registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over a copy of the FIR and rukka to ASI Rakesh Tyagi.
SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 4 of 41
9. PW10-Dr. Richa Aggarwal, Assistant Professor (Obs.& Gyne), GTB Hospital deposed that Dr. Madhu Bagaria, Senior Resident (Gyne) had examined the prosecutrix but then Dr. Madhu Bagaria left the services of the hospital and her whereabouts are not available. This witness further deposed that she had seen Dr. Madhu Bagaria signing and writing in discharge of her official duties. This witness proved the MLC dated 03.10.2008 of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW3/A.
10. PW12-HC Prempal was posted as MHC (M) at police station Nand Nagri. He deposed that on being handed over certain pullandas, samples and an Esteem car bearing registration No. DL-2CZ-8045, he had deposited the articles at the malkhana of police station and made relevant entries in register No.19. He proved the copies of the relevant entries as Ex. PW12/A to Ex. PW12/G. He also deposed that subsequently Constable Manish Kumar vide RC No. 36/21 collected the samples for taking them to CFSL, Calcultta and on 07.09.2009 Head Constable Tilak Raj again deposited the residual samples alongwith the report.
11. PW13-Sh. Anand Swaroop Aggarwal, the then Metropolitan Magistrate deposed that on 04.10.2008 he had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under section 164 Cr. P.C and proved the same as Ex.PW3/B.
12. PW6-SI Sanyogita deposed that on 03.10.2008, she SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 5 of 41 had joined investigation with ASI Rakesh Tyagi. On that day, the prosecutrix came to police station with her mother. This witness took the prosecutrix to GTB Hospital for her medical examination. After her medical examination, the doctor handed over the MLC of the prosecutrix and one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of GTB Hospital containing samples of the victim collected during her medical examination to this witness. The MLC and the pullandas were handed over by her to the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. PW6/A.
13. PW14-SI Rakesh Kumar Tyagi is the first Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 28.09.2008 at about 9:00 AM, the complainant i.e. the mother of the prosecutrix came to police post Harsh Vihar which was under police station Nand Nagri. She lodged her complaint Ex. PW4/A. FIR was got registered on the basis of this complaint/rukka. He made attempts to locate the prosecutrix but she could not be found. On 03.10.2008, the complainant alongwith her daughter (PW3) came to police post Harsh Vihar. Statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter she was taken to GTB Hospital for her medical examination by this witness alongwith Woman Constable Sangeeta and mother of the prosecutrix. Statement of the prosecutrix was also got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter sections 376/34 IPC were added to the FIR. On 22.12.2008 this witness handed over the case file to MHC (R) of police station Nand Nagri as police post Harsh Vihar was made a police station and the territorial jurisdiction of the SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 6 of 41 present case fell within the territorial jurisdiction of police station Nand Nagri.
14. This witness was cross examined on behalf of accused persons. During cross examination this witness deposed that the prosecutrix was not cooperating during investigation and she did not take the police officials to the place where she was allegedly confined by the accused persons despite their asking. He admitted that the prosecutrix had made complaints against SHO, ACP and DCP during that period but he was not aware of the contents of the complaints.
15. PW15-W/SI Santosh was the subsequent Investigating Officer of this case to whom the case was handed over on 15.01.2009 for further investigation after bifurcation of territorial jurisdiction of police station Nand Nagri. This witness deposed that she searched for the accused persons but they could not be located. On 03.09.2009, the prosecutrix informed her that the three accused persons would come to Gagan Cinema at Delhi to watch a movie. The accused persons were apprehended at about 9:00 PM in front of Gagan Cinema on that day. The court granted two days police remand of accused Subhash. During investigation, the police officials visited the place where the prosecutrix was allegedly confined. Investigating Officer also deposed that during investigation, the police team went to Allied Nippo Company Shahibabad where they met the Manager of the company namely R.K. Bhargava (PW7). Sh. R.K. Bhargava told them that no driver SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 7 of 41 by the name of Sandeep was working in that company but one Ashok was working as a driver. He produced the photocopy of driving licence of accused Ashok. On perusal of the said photocopy, it was revealed that it was having the photograph of accused Sandeep and accused Sandeep was working in name of Ashok and driving the vehicle bearing No. DL-2CZ-8045. The said document was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. Other documents such as logbook and attendance sheets for the period 01.09.2009 to 30.09.2008 were also seized from that company. On 21.04.2009 an Esteem car bearing registration No. DL-2CZ-8045 was produced by one Baljinder Singh and the same was identified by the prosecutrix as the car in which she kidnapped and raped.
16. The Investigating Officer was cross examined on behalf of accused persons. During her cross examination, this witness admitted that no Santro car was found involved in this case and the prosecutrix had identified the above mentioned Maruti Esteem car at the police station. Investigating Officer deposed that the mother of the prosecutrix did not produce birth certificate issued by MCD nor handed over any document from the school first attended by the prosecutrix. Investigating Officer admitted that she did not go to the institute where the prosecutrix was taking classes and the prosecutrix also did not hand over any document regarding her attending classes at that institute.
17. PW5-Dr. A.K Gupta, CMO, GTB Hospital deposed that SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 8 of 41 on 04.03.2009, he had medically examined accused Subhash vide MLC Ex. PW5/A. On the basis of his medical examination he concluded that there was nothing to suggest that this accused was not capable of performing sexual activity and recorded his opinion accordingly on MLC Ex. PW5/A.
18. PW9-HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 05.03.2009, he joined investigation of this case with ASI Santosh (PW15). They went to Allied Nippo Company at Shahibabad, UP where the Investigating Officer made enquires from the Manager of that company. It was revealed from the photocopy of the driving licence produced by the Manager of that company that accused Sandeep was working in that company by name of Ashok. From the photocopy of driving licence produced by the Manager of that company, it was revealed that the driving licence is in name of accused Ashok but the photocopy is having the photograph of accused Sandeep.
19. PW7-Sh. R.K. Bhargava deposed that on 05.03.2009 he was working at Allied Nippo Company Limited as Head (HR). On that day, the police officials alongwith accused Subhash came to their premises and made enquiry about Sandeep. This witness informed the Investigating Officer that one Ashok was working as a driver in their company through a contractor Dilshad. At that time, it was revealed to him from the photocopy of the driving licence that the photocopy in their record was that of driving licence of accused Ashok but was having the photograph of Sandeep and accused Sandeep was SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 9 of 41 working in the company by name of Ashok.
20. PW8-Kailash Devi deposed that Sunder Devi was residing in village Orangabad Risthal and she expired on 06.09.2008. This witness deposed that she certified that fact as Ex. PW8/A being the Pradhan of the village at that time.
21. PW16-Ct. Ashok Kumar is a witness of arrest of the accused persons outside Gagan Cinema near Wazirabad road alongwith ASI Santosh, ASI Rampal, the prosecutrix and her mother on 03.03.2009.
22. PW17-Ct. Manish deposed that on 14.04.2009, he deposited two sealed pullandas alongwith sample seals at CFSL, Kolkatta. After coming back he handed over the acknowledgment to MHC(M).
23. PW18-Sh. Baljinder Singh deposed that on 01.12.2008 he had purchased a Maruti Esteem car bearing registration No. DL-2CZ- 8045 from one Sh. R.K. Bajaj. On a notice received from the Investigating Officer, he produced the the car before the Investigating officer on 21.04.2009.
24. PW19-Sh.Banwari Lal, Assistant, Delhi Regional Centre, National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) deposed that as per their record, the prosecutrix was got admitted in 2007 in the institute and she passed secondary examination (10th class) in October, 2008 from that institute. The date of SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 10 of 41 birth of the prosecutrix as per the available record is 01.01.1993. He proved the marksheet of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW19/A. He proved a letter issued by Smt. Bhawna Dhyani, Regional Director authorisinig him to appear as a witness as Ex. PW19/B.
25. During his cross examination, this witness deposed that he cannot tell about the document on the basis of which the prosecutrix got admitted in their institute. He added that the affidavit/photocopy of school leaving certificate or the document which might have been the birth certificate of the prosecutrix have been destroyed as per the norms of National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS).
26. The prosecutrix was examined as PW3. She deposed that on 25.09.2008 at about 6:00 PM she was on her way back to her home from her tuition. When she reached near Har Govind Public School, Harsh Vihar, one black colour Santro car overtook her in which accused Sandeep, Ashok and Subhash were sitting. Accused Subhash was driving the car. Accused Ashok and Sandeep are real brothers. That car stopped near her. Accused Subhash and Ashok got down from the car. Accused Ashok slapped the prosecutrix and accused Subhash gagged her mouth with his hand and thereafter they forcibly pushed the prosecutrix inside the car. She tried to raise alarm but accused Subhash put some cotton wool in her mouth. The accused persons took the car near the canal at Modi Nagar and stopped near bushes. Accused Ashok and Sandeep undressed SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 11 of 41 her by force and then accused Subhash raped her on the rear seat of the car. When the prosecutrix came out of the car and tried to raise alarm, accused Sandeep hit her on her mouth and consequently she started bleeding. The prosecutrix was semi-conscious. She further deposed that accused Ashok and Sandeep did not rape her but they removed their clothes and laid on her when she was naked. She then said that she cannot say if they had committed rape on her or not as she was not fully conscious.
27. The prosecutrix further deposed that accused Subhash took her to his house at village Ristal where she was confined in a room. She was not allowed to go outside and the room was kept locked. She was kept confined in that room for about nine days. During this period, accused Subhash used to rape her four to five times everyday. During this period, accused Ashok and Sandeep committed oral sex with her. When mother and sister of accused Subhash came inside the room, the prosecutrix requested them for help but they told her that she would be sold. During that period, some person from the village informed police and some police officials came to that house. At that time the accused persons and their family members by force took the prosecutrix in a field after gagging her mouth. After the police officials went back, accused Subhash and Sandeep decided to sell the prosecutrix. They were carrying her in a Santro car. When they were passing through a lonely place, accused Sandeep received a phone call and he went out of the car. Accused Subhash was SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 12 of 41 drunk and went asleep. Seizing her opportunity, the prosecutrix ran away. The accused persons chased her by car but she ran fast and reached police post Karan Gate and was able to hide herself near some flower pots at the police post. After some time, she hired an auto and reached Bhopura but she did not pay to the autowala as she was not having any money. She made phone calls from a STD booth to her maternal uncle and her elder sister. Her sister and mother came there and she was taken to her home. Next morning she went to police station Harsh Vihar and reported the matter to the police officials. The prosecutrix further deposed that she was taken to GTB Hospital where she was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW3/A. Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was got recorded which is Ex.PW3/B. She further deposed that her date of birth is 01.01.1993.
28. During her evidence, a Maruti Esteem car bearing registration No. DL-2CZ-8045 was shown to the prosecutrix but she deposed that the said car was not the same car in which she had been kidnapped and raped as the car used for the offences was a black colour Santro car. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State cross examined the prosecutrix on the identity of the car with the permission of the court. The prosecutrix denied that she had stated to the police that the car in which the offence of rape was committed on her was a grey colour Maruti Esteem car bearing registration No. DL-2CZ-8045 and not a black colour Santro car.
SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 13 of 41
29. The prosecutrix was cross examined on behalf of accused persons at length. The deposition of this witness during her cross examination shall be taken note of at appropriate places.
30. The mother of the prosecutrix was examined as PW4. She deposed that the prosecutrix is her younger daughter among the three daughters and her date of birth is 01.01.1993. On 25.09.2008, the prosecutrix went for her tuition at about 3:00 PM but then she did not come back. This witness went to the coaching centre where she came to know from a teacher that the prosecutrix had left the coaching centre at usual time. She searched for the prosecutrix but she could not be located and then this witness went to police station Harsh Vihar and lodged the missing report Ex.PW4/A of the prosecutrix. This witness (PW4) deposed that at that time the prosecutrix was aged about 14½ years. The police officials told this witness that they had tried to locate the prosecutrix. On 02.10.2008, this witness received a phone call from the prosecutrix by which the prosecutrix informed her that on finding an opportunity, she (prosecutrix) was able to escape from the clutches of the accused persons and she had hidden herself behind Karan Chowki. The prosecutrix was also able to make a phone call to her maternal uncle on his phone who also informed this witness about the prosecutrix. On receiving this information, PW4 alongwith some persons from the village reached Bhopura Chowk where this witness met the prosecutrix and she was brought back to her home. Next day SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 14 of 41 the prosecutrix was taken to police station Harsh Vihar. PW4 further deposed that the prosecutrix had told her that the accused persons by force abducted her after putting cotton wool in her mouth and then accused Subhash raped her in that car. Accused Ashok caught hold of the prosecutrix. They also beat the prosecutrix. Accused Subhash raped the prosecutrix near the lake of Murad Nagar and both the accused persons laid on her and she was not conscious. This witness further deposed that the prosecutrix told her that the accused persons had threatened to kill her. At about 3:00 AM of that day the prosecutrix was being taken to some place for selling her and at that time accused Subhash and Sandeep were under influence of alcohol. Accused Sandeep came out of the car to receive a phone call. In that situation the prosecutrix was able to escape and reach a place near Karan Chowki.
31. The mother of the prosecutrix was also cross examined on behalf of accused persons at length. The deposition of this witness during her cross examination shall also be taken note of at appropriate places.
32. After the prosecution evidence was closed, statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, which shall also be taken note of at appropriate places.
33. Accused Ashok opted to lead defence evidence and he examined one Surender Kumar @ Lilu as DW1. This witness SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 15 of 41 deposed that accused Ashok and Sandeep are his cousin brothers. Accused Subhash was residing in their village. He deposed that in the year 2008, the prosecutrix resided in the house of accused Subhash for about a week. During her stay at the house of accused Subhash, the prosecutrix used to visit various places such as markets. However, the residents of the village were annoyed and insisted that the prosecutrix should go back to her home and thus she left the house of accused Subhash. After five months, the accused persons were taken in custody by the police officials in this case. This witness further deposed that the prosecutrix had made a false complaint of rape even against him (DW1) and four-five other persons at police station Nand Nagri. On enquiry the said complaint was found to be false and no FIR was got registered. Thereafter the prosecutrix and her mother filed a complaint against him and other persons under section 156(3) Cr. P.C before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the said complaint also got dismissed. He deposed that the prosecutrix was annoyed with him as he was acting as parokar of accused Ashok and Sandeep during the period of their custody in this case.
34. This witness was cross examined on behalf of State. During his cross examination, this witness denied that the prosecutrix was confined at the house of accused Subhash by force. He admitted that he had not filed any defamation case against the prosecutrix.
35. I have heard Sh. Kamal Akhtar, learned Addl. Public SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 16 of 41 Prosecutor for the State and Sh. R.K. Kochar, Advocate for accused Ashok, Sh. Mohd. Hasan, Amicus Curiae for accused Sandeep and Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for accused Subhash.
Accused Subhash
36. Accused Subhash is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under sections 363/366/34 IPC and under section 376/201 IPC.
37. The prosecutrix in her deposition has deposed that on 25.09.2008 at about 6:00 PM she was on her way back from her tuition. When she reached near Har Govind Public School at Harsh Vihar, one black colour Santro car having dark glasses came from her backside in which all the three accused persons were sitting. Accused Sandeep was driving the car. Accused Subhash and Ashok came out of that car and slapped her. By force they pushed the prosecutrix inside the car and put cotton wool in her mouth. The car was driven around for some time and then taken near the canal at Modi Nagar. The car stopped near some bushes where accused Sandeep and Ashok made the prosecutrix naked and accused Subhash raped her on the rear seat of the car. She came out of the car and tried to raise alarm but accused Sandeep assaulted her and she started bleeding. Thereafter all the accused persons took the prosecutrix to the house of accused Subhash at village Risthal and confined her at that house for about nine days. As she was being carried in the car for selling her, she was able to SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 17 of 41 escape. As per prosecutrix, she had never seen accused persons earlier.
38. The defence put forward by accused Subhash is that the prosecutrix and this accused were acquainted with each other. The prosecutrix of her own accompanied this accused to his house. The prosecutrix desired to marry this accused but the family of the accused and other residents of the village did not approve of their marriage as the prosecutrix was not of marriageable age. The prosecutrix remained with the family of the accused till 02.10.2008 as a guest and then she was went back to her house. It is also the case of accused Subhash that when his family members refused to give approval for their marriage, the prosecutrix got annoyed and she filed this false case.
Charge under sections 363/366/34 IPC
39. The offence of kidnapping has been defined in section 361 IPC. Section 363 IPC lays down punishment for offence of kidnapping of a minor. Section 366 stipulates that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 18 of 41 and shall also be liable to fine. For the offence of kidnapping it is not essential that there should be use of force. It is sufficient if the accused had enticed or induced the prosecutrix to leave lawful guardianship of his or her parents and accompany the accused. Kidnapping can be either by force or enticement.
40. In Thakorlal D. Vadgama vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1973 SC 2313), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"The word "entice" seems to involve the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This can take many forms, difficult to visualise and describe exhaustively; some of them may be quite subtle depending for their success on the mental state of the person at the time when the inducement is intended to operate. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating after some time, in achieving its ultimate purposes of successful inducement. The two words "takes" and "entices", as used in Section 361, I.P.C. are, in our opinion, intended to be read together so that each takes to some extent its colour and contents from the other. The statutory language suggests that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty partly, SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 19 of 41 then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in Section 361, I.P.C. But if the guilty party has laid a foundation by inducement, allurement or threat, etc. and if this can be considered to have influenced the minor or weighed with her in leaving her guardian's custody or keeping and going to the guilty party, then prima facie it would be difficult for him to plead innocence on the ground that the minor had voluntarily come to him. If he had at an earlier stage solicited or induced her in any manner to leave her father's protection, by conveying or indicating an encouraging suggestion that he would give her shelter, then the mere circumstance that his act was not the immediate cause of her leaving her parental home or guardian's custody would constitute no valid defence and would not absolve him."
41. The mother of the prosecutrix appeared as PW4 and deposed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 01.01.1993 and she was born at her house. Sh. Banwari Lal, Assistant, Regional Centre, Delhi National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) appeared as PW19. He deposed that as per the available record, the prosecutrix with enrollment number 270xxxxx054 was got admitted in the Institute in the year 2007 and she passed secondary examination (10th class) in October, 2008 from that Institute. He also deposed that as per SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 20 of 41 the available record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 01.01.1993. He proved the marksheet of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW19/A. This marksheet Ex. PW19/A records the date of the birth of the prosecutrix as 01.01.1993. He also stated that as per the norms of the Institute, the records of candidates such as admission form, affidavit/photocopy of school leaving certificate/photocopy of birth certificate are preserved for five years and then destroyed.
42. I see no reason to disbelieve the oral deposition of the mother of the prosecutrix and record of NIOS. Record of NIOS is not liable to be ignored on the ground that there is no evidence to show that NIOS was the first attended educational institution of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix passed out 10th class in October, 2008 and the normal age of passing out 10th class is 15-16 years. In the circumstances, it stands established that the prosecutrix was born on 01.01.1993. The prosecutrix was found missing from her home on 25.09.2008. Thus she was about 15 years and 9 months of age i.e. below 16 years of age on 25.09.2008. Accused Subhash was 20-21 years of age at that time.
43. As noted above, accused Subhash has not disputed that the prosecutrix remained at his house between 25.09.2008 and 02.10.2008. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Subhash has stated that the prosecutrix was residing in his house as a friend with her free will and consent. It was suggested to the prosecutrix in her cross SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 21 of 41 examination that during the period she remained at the house of this accused, she used to sleep with his mother and sister and go out with them. In her cross examination dated 09.04.2015, it was suggested to the prosecutrix that she of her own accompanied the accused Subhash on his bike and the other two accused persons had not accompanied them. The mother of the prosecutrix (PW4) had lodged the missing report Ex.PW4/A at police station Nand Nagri on 28.09.2008. Thus it stands established that the prosecutrix came to the house of accused Subhash with him and she was at his house between 25.09.2008 and 02.10.2008.
44. It is not the case of this accused that the mother of the prosecutrix was kept informed about the fact that the prosecutrix is going to accompany him to his house. The conduct of the mother of the prosecutrix in recording the missing report of the prosecutrix on 28.09.2008 (Ex.PW4/A) without naming the accused also shows that the mother of the prosecutrix was not aware of the fact that the prosecutrix was with accused Subhash or at the house of this accused. I am of the opinion that the prosecutrix must have left her house only on the suggestion of accused Subhash and thus there was enticement on the part of this accused. It is not the case of the accused that the prosecutrix left her lawful guardianship on her own and accused Subhash tried to persuade the prosecutrix to return back to her home or he informed her parents about her whereabouts. Hence, commission of an offence punishable under section 363 IPC stands established against accused SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 22 of 41 Subhash. However, for the reasons recorded hereinafter, I am of the opinion that the case of prosecution that accused Subhash kidnapped the prosecutrix by use of force is not established.
45. I have held hereinafter that the prosecution has failed to establish that this accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. It is not the case of the prosecutrix that this accused intended to marry her against her will. Thus, it cannot be inferred that the prosecutrix was kidnapped with the intention that she should be subjected to illicit intercourse or she will be compelled to marry against her will. In the circumstances, the offence under section 366 IPC which is an aggravated form of offence punishable under section 363 IPC is not made out.
46. Accused Subhash is liable to be convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 363 IPC.
Charge under section 376 IPC
47. The prosecutrix during her cross examination admitted that for the period she remained in the house of accused Subhash, his mother, sister, two brothers and two or three small children were also residing in that house. In her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C she had stated that wives of the brothers of the accused were also staying in that house. This house was in a village and not in an isolated place.
SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 23 of 41
48. The prosecutrix came back to her house on 02.10.2008. The prosecutrix was got medically examined on 03.10.2008 vide MLC Ex.PW3/A at GTB Hospital. MLC Ex. PW3/A records that there were no marks of injury on the person of the prosecutrix and her hymen "does not seem to be torn". MLC Ex. PW3/A also records that the prosecutrix was not cooperating during her medical examination and the prosecutrix after coming home had changed her clothes and taken bath. Samples collected during medical examination of the prosecutrix were sent to CFSL, Kolkatta for forensic analysis. The CFSL report is on judicial record as Ex. PW15/D. The CFSL report Ex.PW15/D records that human semen was not detected in the vaginal samples of the prosecutrix.
49. Thus, it is apparent that the MLC and forensic report do not support the case of prosecution that accused Subhash had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.
50. In case of Beeru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [Criminal Appeal No. 1079/2010 decided on December 11, 2013], a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as follows:-
"25. As can be seen from the aforesaid authoritative view of the experts in the medical field as referred to by the Hon'ble Division Bench and by Justice Verma Committee, the condition of hymen being torn of the prosecutrix may not necessarily mean a SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 24 of 41 previous sexual intercourse and conversely the hymen being not torn also does not necessarily mean that there was no sexual intercourse. In some of the females hymen can also be missing and in such cases also, mere absence of hymen will not necessarily prove the previous sexual intercourse and likewise will also not rule out the previous sexual assault. Much would depend on the quality, reliability and credibility of the testimony of the prosecutrix and if the same is found to be of unimpeachable character, the conviction of the accused can be based on the same even without looking for corroboration from the medical evidence. The same principle equally applies to the evidence of the Forensic Science as the same is also not a substantive piece of evidence and may not support even otherwise clear and cogent evidence of the prosecutrix. It is also a settled legal position that for proving the offence of rape, penetrative sexual assault may not necessarily result in ejaculation and therefore in such cases there can hardly arise any question of stains of semen being there on the clothes of the victim and the perpetrator of the crime. Thus the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant on this aspect also lacks merit and the same is rejected."
51. In the circumstances, it would appear that the case SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 25 of 41 of prosecution is based on the statement of the prosecutrix alone.
52. In a recent judgment reported as Garvit Indora vs. State, NCT of Delhi [2015 (3) JCC 1681], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to the case law on this subject and observed as follows:
"5. Settled legal position is that conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of prosecutrix provided it is reliable and is of sterling quality.
6. In Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. State of Assam (2010) 12 SCC 115, observing that a case of sexual assault has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as any other case and that there is no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
"Though the statement of prosecutrix must be given prime consideration, at the same time, broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there could be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully. In the instant case, not only the testimony of the victim woman is highly disputed and unreliable, her testimony has been throughly demolished by the deposition of DW-1."
7. In another case Raju v. State of Madhya SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 26 of 41 Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 113, the Supreme Court stated that the testimony of a victim of rape has to be tested as if she is an injured witness but cannot be presumed to be gospel truth.
"It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."
8. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2012) 8 SCC 21, the Supreme Court commented about the quality of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix which could be made basis to convict the accused. It held:-
"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 27 of 41 of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the person involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 28 of 41 chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
9. In Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 15 SCC 566, the Supreme Court held:-
''It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter.""
53. In Hemraj vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 2 SCC 395], SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 29 of 41 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"In a case involving charge of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix is most vital. If it is found credible, if it inspires total confidence, it can be relied upon even sans corroboration. The court may, however, if it is hesitant to place implicit reliance on it, look into other evidence to lend assurance to it short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. (see State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain) Such weight is given to the prosecutrix's evidence because her evidence is on a par with the evidence of an injured witness which seldom fails to inspire confidence. Having placed the prosecutrix's evidence on such a high pedestal, it is the duty of the court to scrutinise it carefully, because in a given case on that lone evidence a man can be sentenced to life imprisonment. The court must, therefore, with its rich experience evaluate such evidence with care and circumspection and only after its conscience is satisfied about its creditworthiness rely upon it."
54. I am of the opinion that in this case the oral deposition of the prosecutrix is not sufficient to conclude that accused Subhash kidnapped the prosecutrix by force and had sexual intercourse with her and thus raped her. The prosecutrix at the relevant time was below 16 years of age. Thus sexual intercourse with her by itself would have constituted the offence of rape. The age of consent for sexual intercourse at SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 30 of 41 that relevant time was 16 years.
55. Various statements made by the prosecutrix have not been consistent. There have been variations on material aspects. The prosecutrix has been consistently improving upon her case.
(a) In her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. (Ex. PW3/B), the prosecutrix stated that on 25.09.2008 she was raped by accused Subhash inside the car while accused Sandeep and Ashok were drinking liquor outside the car. Thus in her statement under section 164 Cr. PC., she did not make any allegation of sexual assault against accused Ashok and Sandeep. However in her deposition in this court, the prosecutrix has deposed that accused Ashok and Sandeep made her naked by force and then laid on her after removing their clothes near the canal at Modi Nagar. In the same breath she further stated that she cannot say if these persons had also raped her as she was unconscious.
(b) In the statement before this court, the prosecutrix has stated that she was confined in a room at the house of accused Subhash where accused Subhash used to rape her four-five times everyday. No such allegation of rape at the house of accused Subhash was made by the prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
(c) In her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C, she did not make any allegation of physical assault against accused Sandeep. In her statement in this court she has stated SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 31 of 41 that this accused hit on her mouth due to which she started bleeding.
(d) In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C the prosecutrix had not made any allegation of sexual assault against accused Sandeep and Ashok while she was at the house of accused Subhash. However, in her deposition in this court, the prosecutrix has stated that the accused Sandeep and Ashok used to commit oral sex with her during her alleged confinement at the house of accused Subhash.
(e) As per the deposition of the prosecutrix in this court, she escaped from the clutches of the accused persons on 02.10.2008 when she was being carried by a car for selling her. However her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C about the circumstances in which she was being carried in the car is substantially different. In that statement, the prosecutrix had stated that the certain police officials had come to the house of accused Subhash and the daughter of the mausi of the accused had taken her to a field (khet) in order to hide her. After the police officials left, she was being transported to distant places to hide her from police.
(f) In the statement before this court, the prosecutrix has stated that she was threatened by the mother and sister of accused Subhash during her stay with them that they will sell her. No such allegation was made in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
(g) The prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C had dragged the name of elder sister, aunt (mausi) of accused Subhash and the daughter of the mausi of accused SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 32 of 41 Subhash. However, no such statement was made by her in this court. As per statement of PW8 (Pradhan of village) mausi of this accused had already expired on 08.09.2008.
(h) As per the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C, she was kidnapped in a Santro car. However, during investigation the prosecutrix stated that she had been kidnapped in a Maruti Esteem car and identified a Maruti Esteem car. However, in this court she denied that she was kidnapped in a Esteem car but said that she was kidnapped in a Satnro car and her statements were not correctly recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is not her case that she was not aware of the difference between a Santro car and a Maruti Esteem car. The prosecutrix was brought up in the city of Delhi and she was a student of 10th standard. No Santro car was got recovered.
56. A witness who makes such inconsistent statements cannot be considered a reliable witness much less a sterling witness.
57. Conduct of the prosecutrix after the incident has not been normal. The prosecutrix in her cross examination dated 16.05.2013, admitted that even after the alleged incident she used to make phone calls to accused Subhash and had sent SMSs to him. In her subsequent cross examination held on 25.08.2015, the prosecutrix tried to explain these calls by saying that she had made the phone calls to accused Subhash on advice of ACP but the explanation is clearly an afterthought.
SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 33 of 41 Investigating Officer of this case SI Rakesh Kumar Tyagi deposed that the prosecutrix was not cooperating during investigation and she did not take them to the place where she was allegedly confined by accused persons despite their asking. The MLC Ex. PW3/A of the prosecutrix records that the prosecutrix was not cooperating during her medical examination.
58. As the prosecutrix did not cooperate during investigation, it did not proceed further. The accused persons could be taken in custody only on 03.03.2009 i.e. after a delay of five months. As per the deposition of SI Santosh and other police officials namely PW11 and PW16, the accused persons were taken in custody outside Gagan Cinema when they had come to that theatre to watch a movie at 9:00 PM. SI Santosh also stated that the police officials were waiting for the accused persons on the prior information given by the prosecutrix. It is extraordinary that the prosecutrix had prior information that the accused persons would come to watch a movie at that theatre. Watching of movie at a theatre 30 kilometer away from the place of residence is not a daily routine. This again shows that the prosecutrix was in touch with accused Subhash.
59. Fact that the prosecutrix filed a complaint of rape against Surender Kumar @ Lilu who is a relative of accused Ashok and Sandeep and was acting as their parokar during the period of their detention in this case alongwith three accused SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 34 of 41 persons and that complaint was found false by the police officials does not speak highly about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix as a witness. The prosecutrix admitted in her cross examination that she had filed complaint of rape against accused Sandeep, Ashok and Surender Kumar @ Lilu (DW1) but no FIR was got registered in the matter. A copy of status report filed by the police before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in that case is in this file. It is an admitted position that there was no direction by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to record FIR in that case.
60. In view of above infirmity in the evidence of the prosecutrix, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has not stated true facts. As a consequence charge under section 376 IPC must fail.
Charge under section 201 IPC
61. The allegation of the prosecution is that after the accused Subhash committed rape on the prosecutrix in a car, he cleaned the seat of car with water and burnt the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident. This was with the intent to cause disappearance of evidence of rape. He thus committed an offence under section 201 IPC.
62. I have held above that the prosecution has failed to establish that accused Subhash had raped the prosecutrix and SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 35 of 41 thus question of destruction of evidence of rape would not arise. The prosecutrix has not stated anything to this effect in her evidence. There is no other evidence on record to that effect. The identity of car was never established. In the circumstances, charge under section 201 IPC must fail.
Accused Sandeep and Ashok
63. Accused Sandeep and Ashok are facing trial for commission of offences punishable under sections 363/366/471/34 IPC.
Charge under sections 363/366/34 IPC
64. Accused Ashok and Sandeep are real brothers and neighbourers of accused Subhash. Allegation against these accused persons in the chargesheet is that these persons alongwith accused Subhash kidnapped the prosecutrix on 25.09.2008 in a car and brought her to the house of accused Subhash. In the circumstances, they committed offences under sections 363 and 366 IPC.
65. Accused Ashok and Sandeep had no motive to use force against the prosecutrix or entice her. As per accused Subhash, prosecutrix accompanied him to his village on his bike. The identity of the car in which the prosecutrix was kidnapped has not been established. As noted above, statements of the prosecutrix have not been consistent as to SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 36 of 41 whether the car was a Santro car or a Maruti Esteem Car. I have commented upon the veracity of the statement of the prosecutrix in earlier part of this judgment. There is nothing to corroborate the allegation of the prosecutrix that these accused persons were sitting in the car when she was kidnapped in a car. Moreover, even assuming that these persons were setting in a car which carried the prosecutrix, there is nothing to show that these accused persons were aware of the background in which the prosecutrix was being carried to the house of accused Subhash. In such circumstances this court holds that the prosecution has not been able to prove its charge under sections 363/366/34 IPC against accused Sandeep and Ashok. They are acquitted of the charge of having committed offences punishable under sections 363/366/34 IPC.
Charge under section 471/34 IPC
66. Allegation of prosecution is that during course of investigation of this case, it was revealed that accused Sandeep was working as a driver in a private firm by the name of Allied Nippo Company Ltd as Ashok. Accused Sandeep had been working in that company on the basis of a fabricated document namely a purported photocopy of driving licence which had the photograph of Sandeep but the original driving licence was that of Ashok. This charge under section 471/34 IPC does not relate to the prosecutrix as such.
SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 37 of 41
67. The allegation of fabrication of licence has no connection with the transaction which is the subject matter of the present FIR. The alleged offence did not take place within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
68. Sh. R.K. Bhargava (PW7) from Allied Nippo Company Ltd. in his evidence recorded on 14.12.2013 proved the photocopy of the driving licence allegedly handed over by him to the Investigating Officer as Ex. PW7/B. Deposition of PW7 would show that accused Sandeep was allegedly working through a contractor and was not an employee of the above firm. The prosecution never examined the contractor. The original record relating to driving licence was not summoned from the Motor Vehicle Authority. The above said firm never made any complaint in the matter. PW7 has not explained as to why the company mechanically relied on the photocopy without looking into the original driving licence.
69. It is no doubt true that PW7 was not cross examined at all, though opportunity was given for that purpose. However, I am not inclined to attach much importance to the fact that PW7 was not cross examined. The ordersheet would show that on 14.12.2013, the accused persons had appeared without their Advocates and had submitted that they have no means to pay fees to their counsel and they may be given a counsel at State expense. Accordingly, my learned predecessor vide the same order appointed Sh. Mohd. Hasan, Advocate who was present in the court as amicus curiae on their behalf and SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 38 of 41 the case got adjourned on the request of Mohd. Hasan, Advocate as he sought time for inspection of file. The evidence of PW7 was closed.
70. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of these accused persons for the offence punishable under section 471/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
71. In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused Subhash under section 363 IPC and thus he is convicted under section 363 IPC. However, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against this accused under sections 376/201 IPC and 366/34 IPC and thus he is acquitted of the charge under sections 376/201 IPC and 366/34 IPC. Further the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused Sandeep and Ashok under sections 363/366/471/34 IPC and thus, they are acquitted of the charge under sections 363/366/471/34 IPC. It is ordered accordingly.
72. All accused persons have already furnished their personal bonds and surety bonds under section 437A Cr.P.C. and the same have been accepted.
Announced in the open court on 05.12.2015 (SARITA BIRBAL) Additional Sessions Judge, (SFTC), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 39 of 41 IN THE COURT OF MS. SARITA BIRBAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), EAST, NORTH EAST & SHAHDARA DISTRICTS, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No.122/13 FIR No.450/08 PS: Nand Nagri U/S: 363 IPC State Versus Subhash S/o Likhi Ram R/o Village-Orangabad Risthal, PS-Loni, District-Ghaziabad, UP.
Order on point of Sentence:
Present: Sh. Kamal Akhter, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State.
Convict produced from J/C. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the convict.
1. I have heard learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the convict on the point of sentence.
2. Convict Subhash has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 363 IPC.
3. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the convict be sentenced with maximum punishment as prescribed under law.
4. Learned counsel for the convict submitted that the convict is an unmarried boy of 27 years of age and he has no criminal antecedents. At the time of commission of offence he was SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 40 of 41 21 years of age. It is also submitted that the convict has to support his family. It is stated that the convict is in judicial custody since 06.03.2009. It is prayed that a lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to him.
5. Offence of kidnapping punishable under section 363 IPC provides punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine.
6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the convict is sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable under section 363 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall be liable to undergo further 15 days Simple Imprisonment.
7. Convict shall be given benefit under section 428 Cr.P.C.
8. Copy of order on sentence and judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Announced in the open court on 09.12.2015 (SARITA BIRBAL) ASJ (SFTC), East/KKD Courts,Delhi SC No.122/13 State Vs. Subhash etc Page no. 41 of 41