Delhi District Court
State vs Sikandar @ Babu S/O Md. Abdul Mistri on 12 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMAI
JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (POCSO ACT)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (NORTHEAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 44919/2015
FIR No. 434/2011
PS Khajuri Khas
Under Section 451/506 IPC and
Section 376(2)(f) IPC read with Section 511 IPC
State Versus Sikandar @ Babu S/o Md. Abdul Mistri
R/o House of Titu, Gali No.2, Village Sherpur,
Delhi.
Date of institution of case : 08.3.2013
Date on which judgment reserved : 01.5.2017
Date of judgment pronounced : 11.5.2017
J U D G M E N T :
On 26.11.2012, on receipt of DD No. 26A SI Amit Prakash and W/Ct.
Aarti reached Gali No. 1, Village Sherpur, Delhi, where Ct. Tejbir was
already present. Complainant Uma produced her niece i.e. victim - a minor
girl age about 10 years, alleging that at about 3.30 pm, when she went to take
meals at the house of her mausi Smt. Radha in the neighbour, she found the
door of the room closed but it was not bolted and upon opening it, she saw
that accused Sikander @ Babu, who was residing in the neighbour, was lying
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 1 of 20
upon the victim and was doing wrong acts with her and on seeing her, he
fled away while threatening to face dire consequences. Complainant further
alleged that the victim was alone at the house at that time as her family
members had gone to their work place.
Victim was got medically examined and present FIR was got
registered by the IO. Accused was arrested on 27.12.2011 at the instance of
the complainant. Statement of the victim was also recorded U/S 164 Cr. PC
and Section 376/511 IPC were added in the charge sheet.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
accused for the offences punishable under Section 342/354/376/511/506 IPC.
Copies of the charge sheet were supplied to the accused and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. After hearing arguments, charge for the offences punishable under
Section 451 IPC, Section 376(2)(f) IPC read with Section 511 IPC and
Section 506 IPC was framed against the accused, vide order dt. 16.9.2013, to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all to substantiate the
charges.
PW1 was the victim.
PW2 Smt. Jayanti Singh was the mother of the victim.
PW3 ASI Jag Roshini joined investigation and accompanied the IO
and the victim to the Court of Ld. MM where statement of the victim was
recorded U/S 164 Cr. PC.
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 2 of 20
PW4 ASI Kanchi Singh was the Duty Officer.
PW5 lady Ct. Saroj had also accompanied the victim and the IO to the
Court of Ld. MM where the victim was examined U/S 164 Cr. PC.
PW6 Lady Ct. Aarti Khushwaha joined the IO/SI Amit Prakash on
receipt of DD No. 26A and then took the victim to GTB Hospital where she
was got medically examined.
PW7 Smt. Uma was the complainant of this case who had allegedly
seen the accused doing wrong acts with the victim.
PW8 Smt. Radha was the grandmother of the victim and Mausi of
PW7 and deposed that at the time of incident she was present at her work
place in the Red Fort area and reached her home on receipt of call from her
soninlaw Rajesh.
PW9 Smt. Meenu was the cousin of complainant Uma and was
residing nearby and she also reached the spot after the incident.
PW10 Smt. Chandni was a neighbour of the victim and had seen the
victim returning from her school and going inside her room.
PW11 ASI Jagbir Singh proved DD No. 26A as Ex.PW11/A being the
Duty Officer at the relevant time.
PW12 HC Tejveer Singh was on duty as Beat Constable and had
reached the spot after receiving information from Duty Officer. He joined
the proceedings with the IO and was also a witness to the arrest of accused.
PW13 Dr. Sanjeeta Behra proved the medical observation report of the
victim given by Dr. Geetika and had identified her handwriting and
signatures.
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 3 of 20
PW14 Dr. P. Ram proved the MLC of the victim as Ex.PW14/A and
medical sheets as Ex.PW14/B which were prepared by Dr. Munesh.
PW15 Shri Shatrughan Upadhaya - Teacher from the school of the
victim proved her school admission record.
PW16 Shri Veeru Singh was the father of the victim and he deposed
that he came to know about the incident from her sister Uma i.e the
complainant.
PW17 SI Amit Prakash conducted the entire investigation of this case
and proved the relevant documents in that regard.
5. Statement of the accused was recorded separately U/S 313 Cr. PC and
all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied and claimed
that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He raised a defence that the
father of the victim namely Veeru used to quarrel with him after consuming
liquor and on the day of incident, Veeru had a quarrel with his son Akbar
over issue of filling up of water and they falsely implicated him in the
present case in connivance with Uma. He examined his neighbour Taj Mohd.
as DW1 to prove his defence.
6. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Shri Gautam Pal -
Advocate/Amicus Curiae for the accused and have carefully gone through
the records.
7. As is clear from the aforesaid, there are only two material witnesses in
this case i.e. the victim (PW1) herself and complainant Uma (PW7). The
incident took place on 26.12.2011. The statement of the victim was recorded
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 4 of 20
by the IO, under Section 161 CrPC on 27.12.2011. In that statement, the
victim stated that on the previous day, that is to say on 26.12.2011, she was
alone at her house and watching TV when a person came inside and closed
the door. She further stated that the said person laid her on the bed and
started committing wrong acts with her but in the meanwhile her aunt (bua)
Uma came inside and on seeing her, the said person fled away.
8. The victim was taken to the hospital for medical examination on the
date of the incident itself i.e. on 26.12.2011 wherein alleged history of rape
at 03.30pm was given and it is also recorded that the victim stated that she
was mouth gagged.
9. The statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded on
27.12.2011. She reiterated that on the previous day, she was present in the
house and watching TV and playing with dolls when one person came to her
house, namely Babu, who used to stitch salwar and he tied her mouth with a
cloth and laid her and then took off her underwear and laid upon her. She
further stated that the said person also removed his underwear and took out a
knife from his pocket and pointed it at her. In the meanwhile, her aunt (bua)
came and that person opened the door and fled away.
10. Thereafter, the victim was examined in Court as PW1. This
examination was recorded on 29.04.2014 i.e. after a gap of more than three
years from the date of incident. The victim deposed that presently she was
residing at West Bengal and further deposed that in the year 2011, she was
residing in Delhi with her family and on the date of incident, she was present
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 5 of 20
in her home at Delhi. She further deposed that it was noon time and she was
playing with doll while watching TV and at that time one person came inside
her house and pressed her mouth but failed to remember the name of that
person. She further deposed that the said person tied her hands and feet and
pointed a knife upon her and then made her to lie on the bed. She then
deposed that the said person removed her underwear as also his underwear
and laid upon her but in the meanwhile, her aunt (bua) came there, who tried
to catch hold of that person but he fled away from there and then her aunt
called the police. She identified the accused in the Court as the same person
who had committed the aforesaid acts with her.
11. She was crossexamined at length and in the crossexamination, she
deposed that the name of the accused was told to her by the police at the
police station. However, when she was put the name of the accused directly,
she deposed that she did not know any person, namely Sikandar residing in
her neighbour. She further deposed that her hands and feet were tied by the
accused with a string but did not know if that string was taken by the police.
She also deposed that on the date of incident, she had not gone to the school,
though she used to go to the school in the morning and return at about
10.30am.
12. An appreciation of the three statements of the victim which have come
on record i.e. under Section 161 CrPC, under Section 164 CrPC and her
testimony before the court, would show that the victim had maintained her
version regarding the fact that on the day of incident and at the time of
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 6 of 20
incident, she was alone in her room, watching TV when the accused entered
the room and closed the door, laid her on the bed and removed her
underwear as well as his and then laid upon her, but in the meanwhile, her
aunt came and he fled away. There are some improvements in her testimony
such as the accused had tied her hands and feet with a string and another
improvement in her statement under Section 164 CrPC that her mouth was
gagged or tied with a white cloth which she could not depose before the
court but these are only minor improvements or contradictions which can be
expected from a child of ten years who was studying in class III.
In Raju Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No.1221/2012, decided on 11.10.2013)
it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "minor contradictions,
inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the
case of the prosecution, should not be made a ground for the Court to reject the
evidence in its entirety". The aforesaid improvements are two minor and trivial
to reject the entire testimony of the victim.
13. The other material witness was the complainant and also an eye
witness to the alleged incident i.e. PW7 Smt. Uma. Her testimony was
recorded after more than four years of the incident. She gave the background
and her relationship with the victim deposing that the mother of the victim
was her mausi and she was residing at the address with her husband while
her brother and his wife were residing in another room. She also deposed
that her mausi i.e. the grandmother of the victim was residing with her son
and daughterinlaw and their two sons, near her house in the house of
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 7 of 20
Dharamvir and that she used to take lunch in the house of her said mausi as
she used to be alone in the day time. She also could not remember the date or
month of the incident but deposed that in the year 2011, in winters, at about
03/03.30pm, she had gone to the house of her mausi (victim's grandmother)
to take lunch and found the door closed and one pair of male slippers lying
outside the door. She deposed that she opened the door as it was not bolted
from inside and found the victim, who is the daughter of the son of her
mausi, lying on the cot and one male person lying over her without his lower
clothes and the victim was also not having her lower clothes on her body.
She then deposed that on seeing her, the said person got up, put on his pant
and threatened her with serious consequences if she disclosed about the
incident to anyone. She further deposed that she tried to apprehend him but
he ran away and then she called Meena, daughter of her another mausi from
the nearby house and then went to the room of the accused in his search but
he was not found present. She further deposed that then she made call to her
mausi Radha (grandmother of the victim) and thereafter, the police was
informed. She proved her complaint to the police, Ex.PW7/A. The accused
was arrested in her presence and she proved his arrest documents.
14. This witness was also crossexamined at length and certain
improvements were recorded in her testimony, firstly regarding her
deposition about the presence of male slippers. The other improvement was
about the fact she deposed that she saw the accused lying over the victim
without his undergarment and that the undergarment of the victim had also
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 8 of 20
been removed and that she tried to catch hold of the accused but he fled
away. All these facts were not recorded in her statement Ex.PW7/A. Apart
from these improvements, the testimony of this witness could not be
impeached as in the case of the victim. It may be reiterated that these
improvements are also minor in nature and do not affect the entire testimony
of the witness and do not make her unworthy of credence.
15. Thus, PW7 corroborated the version of the victim (PW1) and also
corroborated the contents of her complaint that when she entered the room of
the victim, she found the accused lying over her on the bed and they both
were without their undergarments.
16. The other public witnesses examined by the prosecution were hearsay
witnesses including the mother of the victim, who was examined as PW2.
She deposed that the victim used to go to her school in the morning at about
8.00am and return at about 01.00pm. She also deposed that while going to
the work place of her husband, she used to give the keys of her house to her
sisterinlaw Uma (PW7), who was residing in a house, nearby, after just
one other house in between. She also deposed that her motherinlaw also
used to work. She deposed the date of incident as 26.12.2011 and further
deposed that when she and her husband returned home, their neighbour
informed that her sisterinlaw and the victim had gone to the PS and also
apprised them about the incident. She then went to the PS and from there she
accompanied the victim to the hospital. She identified the accused in the
Court. In her crossexamination, she deposed that she received the
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 9 of 20
information about the incident at about 06.00/06.30pm, when she returned
from her work and immediately went to the PS. She also deposed that on the
day of incident, the victim had attended the school, contrary to the deposition
of PW1 (victim). Her testimony is not of much importance as she had only
reached the PS after coming to know about the incident and is a hearsay
witness.
17. PW8 was the grandmother of the victim. She deposed that she used to
work as a ragpicker in the area of Red Fort. She also could not depose the
date or month of the incident but deposed that in the year 2011, at about
05.00/06.00pm, she was informed by her soninlaw Rajesh that he had
received phone call from Meenu about some mishappening with the victim
and she immediately reached her house where she found the victim nervous
and after sometime the victim told her that the accused had misbehaved with
her. She also deposed that PW7 also disclosed same facts to her and then
they called the police at 100 number. In her crossexamination, an
improvement was recorded from her previous statement under Section 161
CrPC, Ex.PW8/DA regarding the fact that she was informed on phone by her
soninlaw, who had received phone from Meenu about some mishappening
with the victim and on reaching home, she found the victim in nervous
condition, who later on disclosed her that accused misbehaved with her and
PW7 Uma also told the same facts. However, she still deposed that she
received information about the incident from her soninlaw. In any case, she
was only a hearsay witness.
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 10 of 20
18. PW9 Smt. Meenu was the niece of PW8, who was residing near her
house and also relative of PW7. She also failed to remember the date, month
or year of the incident but deposed that about four years ago in winters at
about 04.00pm, PW7 Uma approached her who was perplexed at that time
and informed her that one person was trying to commit rape with the victim
and she saw the said person lying over the victim, who also threatened her.
She then deposed that she alongwith Uma immediately reached the house of
the victim who was found there and crying. She then informed her husband
Rajesh and asked him to inform her mausi Radha, who reached the house at
about 07/07.30pm and then the police was called. She identified the accused
in Court. Her testimony is again hearsay and she never deposed that she was
also told about the incident by the victim. However, in any case she had
deposed the chain of events and had corroborated the version of PW7 and
PW8.
19. PW10 Smt. Chandni was the neighbour of the victim and her husband
was running an STD booth in the same house. She also failed to remember
the date, month or the year of the incident but deposed that about four years
ago in winters, at about 01.00pm, when she was present outside her house,
she saw the victim returning from her school and thereafter, the victim went
inside her room. She also deposed that at that time, the grandmother of the
victim and her both parents had gone for their respective work alongwith her
younger brother. She further deposed that after some time, she saw the
victim crying in the company of her bua Uma (PW7) and when she asked
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 11 of 20
for the reason, they both informed that one person had come inside the house
of the victim and was trying to commit rape upon her and had also
threatened her.
20. In her crossexamination, she deposed that when the victim came from
her school, she was in school uniform and that she was wearing same clothes
when she saw her with Uma (PW7). It was pointed out by the Ld. Defence
Counsel that as per the testimony of the victim, she had not attended the
school on that day and if that was so, there was no question of this witness
having seen the victim returning from school or in her school uniform. This
argument has force and thus creates a doubt on the presence and credibility
of this witness. In any case, she is still a hearsay witness.
21. Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out the difference of time when the
matter was informed to various witnesses, as appeared in their deposition
and the time as deposed by police witnesses. In my opinion, these were only
minor differences which may have occurred because of lapse of time and
fading memory of the witnesses, who were examined after three or four
years of the incident. Even otherwise, there is not much difference and all the
witnesses deposed that the incident occurred at about 03/03.30pm and
thereafter the police was informed.
22. The next witness examined by the prosecution regarding the incident
was PW16 Veeru Singh, father of the victim. He deposed that victim used to
stay in the house alone after coming from school as all the family members
used to leave for their work. He also failed to remember the date, month or
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 12 of 20
year of the incident. He deposed that about five years ago when he alongwith
his wife and son returned to the house, he was informed by his sister Uma
(PW7) that the accused residing in their neighbour wrongfully confined the
victim in the house of Dharamvir. He did not allege that he was told that the
accused had tried to commit rape upon the victim. Again, there was some
lapse regarding time as deposed by the witness, who deposed that he
returned to his house after work at about 9.00pm while his wife returned at
about 08/08.30pm. Since, this witness is again hearsay and had not deposed
about the alleged incident, his testimony can be easily ignored.
23. PW15 proved the school record of the victim and deposed that her
date of birth, as per their record, was 10.03.2004, which means that the
victim was less than 18 years of age at the time of incident.
24. Another important witness who was examined was PW13 Dr.
Sanjeeta Behra, who proved the MLC of the victim, prepared by Dr. Geetika
who had since left the services of the hospital and as such she was
summoned to prove the MLC. This witness deposed that as per the MLC of
the victim, no injury was seen on her body and hymen was found intact and
further that the parents of the victim had refused for her internal medical
examination and for sampling.
25. The accused raised a defence that the father of the victim was an
alcoholic and used to pick up quarrels with the neighbours on petty issues.
He also took the plea that on 26.12.2011, the victim's father had a fight with
the accused over filling up of the water from the public tap installed in the
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 13 of 20
gali after which, he falsely implicated the accused. The material witnesses as
mentioned above though admitted that the father of the victim, PW16 used
to consume alcohol but denied that he used to pick up quarrels. DW1, a
neighbour of the accused as well the victim deposed about a quarrel between
the accused and victim's father on 26.12.2011 on the issue of fetching water.
In his crossexamination, he deposed that he was having good relations with
the accused and had arrived in the Court on that day alongwith him. He also
deposed that he did not disclose these facts to the police as there was
pressure on the police of some person, without disclosing the identity of that
person. He also admitted that he had not given any complaint or statement to
this effect before any court. He not only appears to be interested but his
testimony appears to be vague and afterthought and as such, cannot be
accepted.
26. It is thus observed that PW1 victim categorically deposed about the
acts of the accused and PW7 corroborated her version having seen the
accused lying over the victim. In the instant case, the accused has been
charged for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC read with
Section 511 IPC i.e. for attempt to commit rape. In this respect, the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aman Kumar and Anr. Vs. State
of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No.1016 of 1997, dated 10.02.2004
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/366037) are quite relevant wherein the medical
jurisprudence in rape cases has been discussed at length. It was held in the
said case that:
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 14 of 20
"the plea relating to applicability of Section 376 read with
Section 511, IPC needs careful consideration. In every crime,
there is first, intention to commit, secondly preparation to
commit it, thirdly, attempt to commit it. If the third state, that is,
attempt is successful, the crime is complete. If the attempt fails
the crime is not complete, but law punishes the person attempting
the act. Section 511 is a general provision dealing with attempts
to commit offences not made punishable by other specific
sections. It makes punishable all attempts to commit offences
punishable with imprisonment and not only those punishable with
death. An attempt is made punishable, because every attempt,
although it falls short of success, must create alarm, which by
itself is an injury, and the moral guilt of the offender is the same
as if he had succeeded. Moral guilt must be united to injury in
order to justify punishment. As the injury is not as great as if the
act had been committed, only half of the punishment is awarded".
"In order to find an accused guilty of an attempt with intent to
commit a rape, Court has to be satisfied that the accused, when
he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desired to gratify his
passions upon her person, but that he intended to do so at all
events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part. Indecent
assaults are often magnified into attempts at rape. In order to
come to a conclusion that the conduct of the accused was
indicative of a determination to gratify his passion at all events,
and in spite of all resistance, materials must exist. Surrounding
circumstances many times throw beacon of light on that aspect".
"Significantly, the evidence of the prosecutrix and the doctor
does not specifically refer to penetration which is sine qua non
for the offence of rape. There is no material to show that the
accused were determined to have sexual intercourse in all events.
In the aforesaid background, the offence cannot be said to be an
attempt to commit rape to attract culpability under Section
376/511 IPC. But the case is certainly one of indecent assault
upon a woman. Essential ingredients of the offence punishable
under Section 354 IPC are that the person assaulted must be a
woman, and the accused must have used criminal force on her
intending thereby to outrage her modesty"
27. Hon'ble Apex Court, in view of the above findings, held the appellants
in that case guilty of Section 354 IPC instead of Section 376(2)(g) IPC for
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 15 of 20
which they had been convicted.
28. In the instant case as well, there is absolutely no evidence on record
nor the victim nor PW7 deposed that the accused made penetrative assault
or even made any attempt towards penetration. The only evidence which has
come on record in the testimony of the victim is that the accused simply laid
upon her after removing her underwear as well as his. She nowhere alleged
that the accused even touched his male organ upon her vagina or any other
part of her body. The medical evidence as deposed by PW13 is also
suggestive of the fact that the accused made no attempt to commit
penetrative sexual assault as no injury was observed on the person of the
victim and her hymen was found to be intact. In these circumstances and in
view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
mentioned case, it is difficult to return a finding of the guilt of the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC read with Section 511
IPC as there is nothing on record to show that the accused was determined to
have sexual intercourse with the victim in all events. However, unrebutted
facts as deposed by PW1 and PW7 clearly show that the accused had
outraged the modesty of the victim by committing the alleged act and as
such, he is liable to be punished under Section 354 IPC. Apart from that, the
accused had also entered into the room of the victim without any permission
or authority and intending to commit an offence and therefore, he is also
liable to be punished under Section 451 IPC. The facts as deposed by PW7
that the accused had threatened her of serious consequences, if she reported
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 16 of 20
the matter to anyone could not be impeached during her testimony and in
fact no suggestion was ever given to her contrary to this fact. Hence, he is
also liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 506(I)
IPC.
29. From the above discussion and appreciation of evidence, it is clear that
the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The incident pertains to year 2011 i.e. prior to coming into
force of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 and as such, the law which
stood before amendment would be applicable to the facts of this case.
Accordingly, accused Sikandar @ Babu is held guilty for the offences
punishable under Sections 354/451/506(I) IPC (as stood before amendment)
and convicted accordingly.
Put up for arguments/order on the quantum of sentence as per the
schedule given in the ordersheet.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
ON 11th day of May 2017
(Sanjay SharmaI)
Judge Special Court (POCSO Act)
Addl. Sessions Judge01 (NE)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 17 of 20
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMAI
JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (POCSO Act)/ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE -
01 (NORTHEAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No. 44919/2015
FIR No. 434/2011
PS Khajuri Khas
Under Section 451/506 IPC and
Section 376(2)(f) IPC read with Section 511 IPC
State Versus Sikandar @ Babu S/o Md. Abdul Mistri
R/o House of Titu, Gali No.2, Village Sherpur,
Delhi.
Order on sentence :
1.Vide Judgment dated 11.05.2017, convict Sikandar @ Babu was held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 354/451/506(I) IPC.
2. I have heard Sh. Sukhbeer Singh Ld. Addl. PP for the State, assisted by Ms. Shabnam Khan, Advocate/RCC Lawyer from DCW and Sh. Gautam Pal Ld. Counsel/Amicus Curiae for the convict.
3. It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that maximum punishment should be awarded to the convict since he has been found guilty of molesting the victim a minor girl, who was aged about 09 years at the time of the incident as well as of threatening her, after trespassing into her house. He submitted that in case severe SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 18 of 20 punishment is not inflicted upon the convict, a wrong message would go to the society that such criminals can escape with simple imprisonment.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict submitted that the convict is aged about 45 years and is the only bread earner of his family which consists of his wife and four children out of which one is married another is working and two are still young. It is also submitted that the convict is a very poor person and working as a daily wager/labour (beldar) and that there would be no one to look after his family. He further submitted that the convict is a first time offender with no criminal antecedents and as such, it was prayed that a lenient view may be taken.
5. I have considered the mitigating and the aggravating circumstances as presented before me.
6. Accordingly, convict Sikandar @ Babu is hereby sentenced as under:
• Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
• Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC. In case of nonpayment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 19 of 20 • Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 506(I) IPC.
7. Convict remained in judicial custody from 27.12.2011 to 25.01.2012 i.e. for about 29 days. Benefit of Section 428 CrPC is also extended to the convict. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
8. The victim is also entitled to compensation under Section 357A of the CrPC. The convict had been asked if he can pay any compensation but he submitted that since he is the only earning member of the family and had been working as a daily wager/labour (beldar), therefore, he is unable to pay any compensation. This court is satisfied regarding the financial status of the convict as submitted by him. In view thereof, it is directed that a sum of Rs.50,000/ (fifty thousand) be paid as compensation to the victim under the Victim Compensation Act through DLSA and a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Secretary, DLSA, NorthEast District for compliance.
A copy of the judgment and this order be also given to the convict free of cost.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12th day of May 2017 (Sanjay SharmaI) Judge Special Court (POCSO Act), Addl. Sessions Judge01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No. 44919/2015 FIR No.434/2011 PS Khajuri Khas 20 of 20