Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh @ Raj on 17 April, 2014
1
FIR No. 192/10
PS - Sultan Puri
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SPECIAL FAST TRACK
COURT : NORTHWEST DISTRICT : ROHINI : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. : 174/13
Unique ID No. : 02404R0135542011
State Vs. Rajesh @ Raj
S/o Shri Jagdish
R/o Village Piprali,
PS & District - Sikar,
Rajasthan.
FIR No. : 192/10
Police Station : Sultan Puri
Under Sections : 363/366/368/328/376/34 IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE :
1.Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 16/04/2014 accused Rajesh @ Raj has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 120B IPC, section 363 IPC r/w section 120B IPC, section 366 IPC r/w section 120B IPC, section 328 IPC r/w section 120B IPC, u/s 344/368 IPC r/w section 120B IPC and under section 376 IPC.
2. Shri V. S. Yadav, Learned Counsel for the convict Rajesh @ Raj 1 of 8 2 FIR No. 192/10 PS - Sultan Puri submitted that convict Rajesh @ Raj is 26 years of age and is unmarried. He is 7th Class pass and was working as a labourer. He further submitted that he is having the aged parents to look after and was also contributing to the family income. He further submitted that he was having a younger brother who has since expired. He is having one sister who has since been married off. He further submitted that he is running in Judicial Custody (JC) since 20/02/2011 and is not involved in any other case and is having clean antecedents and is not a previous convict and his conduct during the trial was very cooperative and he is the victim of the circumstances and prayed for leniency.
3. On the other hand, Shri S. C. Sroai, Learned Addl. PP for State submitted that seeing the gravity of the offences, the convict be dealt with strictly and severest punishment be given to deter him from committing the same offences in future and no leniency be shown to him.
4. I have heard the Learned Addl. PP for the State and the Learned Counsel for the convict Rajesh @ Raj on the quantum of sentence at length. That in the year, 2010 convict Rajesh @ Raj entered into criminal conspiracy 2 of 8 3 FIR No. 192/10 PS - Sultan Puri with the coaccused i.e. his sister Sonia and her husband Michal (not arrested) to kidnap PW3 - prosecutrix, aged about 17 years (to be exact 17 years, 06 months and 18 days) and that he in furtherance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy kidnapped PW3 prosecutrix on 09/05/2010 from her house i.e. House No. C3/150 Sultan Puri, Delhi out of the lawful custody of her parents without their consent, with intent that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and took her to the house of his maternal aunt (Mami) at Najafgarh, Delhi and thereafter, in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy left her at the house of his sister/coaccused Sonia (not arrested) at Palam, Delhi and in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy coaccused Sonia & Michal (not arrested) gave her (PW3 - prosecutrix) intoxicating or stupefying unwholesome drugs to force and to make her (PW3 - prosecutrix) to accept their illegal demand of indulging herself (PW3 - prosecutrix) in prostitution and they confined her (PW3 - prosecutrix) in a locked room (Band Kar Ke Kamre Mei Rakhte The) and thereafter, in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy coaccused Sonia (not arrested) sent her (PW3 - prosecutrix) to the house of her (coaccused Sonia) friend Rani where PW3 - prosecutrix stayed for about one month and from there convict Rajesh @ Raj took her (PW3 - prosecutrix) in a rented room and then took her (PW3 -
3 of 8 4 FIR No. 192/10 PS - Sultan Puri prosecutrix) to the house of his aunty residing at Shastri Nagar, Delhi and thereafter, convict Rajesh @ Raj took her to the house of his maternal aunt at Uttam Nagar, Delhi and after staying for one night took her (PW3 - prosecutrix) in a tenanted room at Uttam Nagar itself and there convict Rajesh @ Raj used to beat her (PW3 - prosecutrix) and also burnt her with the butts of lighted cigarettes and wherever PW3 - prosecutrix stayed whenever convict Rajesh @ Raj used to come he used to have forcible physical relations with her (PW3 - prosecutrix).
5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahdev Vs. Jaibar @ Jai Dev & Ors. 2009 V AD (S.C.) 515 that : "After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task".
6. It has been held in 'State of Karnataka Vs. Murlidhar', 2009 IV AD (S.C.) 1 that : "The object should be to protect the society and to deter the 4 of 8 5 FIR No. 192/10 PS - Sultan Puri criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal".
7. In 'Mulla & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 508, after considering various earlier decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : "It is settled legal position that the punishment must fit the crime. It is the duty of the Court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. As a measure of social necessity and also as a means of deterring other potential offenders, the sentence should be appropriate be fitting the crime".
8. In 'Pushpanjali Sahu Vs. State of Orissa', (2012) 9 SCC 705 in para 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "Sexual violence is not only an unlawful invasion of the right of 5 of 8 6 FIR No. 192/10 PS - Sultan Puri privacy and sanctity of a woman but also a serious blow to her honour. It leaves a traumatic and humiliating impression on her conscienceoffending her selfesteem and dignity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, but a crime against the entire society. It indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour reputation and not the least her chastity. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely the right of life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely" (Para 12).
9. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the submissions made on behalf of the convict and after delicately balancing and giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which the offences had been committed, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice can be met by sentencing convict Rajesh @ Raj to sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 120B IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a 6 of 8 7 FIR No. 192/10 PS - Sultan Puri fine of Rs. 4,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 363 IPC r/w section 120B IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 366 IPC r/w section 120B IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 328 IPC r/w section 120B IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 344 IPC r/w section 120B IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 368 IPC r/w section 120B IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 376 IPC. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the 7 of 8 8 FIR No. 192/10 PS - Sultan Puri convict Rajesh @ Raj during the inquiry/investigation/trial of this case shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.
A copy of judgment as well as that of order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs.
Announced in the open Court (MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA) th on 17 Day of April, 2014 Additional Sessions Judge Special Fast Track Court (N/W District), Rohini, Delhi 8 of 8