Delhi District Court
State vs . Rohan @ Sonu on 1 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 45/2012
Unique Case ID: 02404R0147152012
State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu
S/o Late Sh. Sunil
R/o H Block, Kalyanpuri
Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 62/2012
Police Station : Keshav Puram
Under Section : 363/366/354/376/511 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 08.06.2012
Date on which orders were reserved : 19.10.2012
Date on which judgment pronounced : 26.10.2012
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
(1) As per the allegations, on 12.3.2012 at Mahinder Public School, Keshav Puram, the accused Rohan @ Sonu kidnapped the prosecutrix 'K' (name of the girl is withheld being the case under Section 376 IPC) a minor aged about 13 years, out of the lawful guardianship of her parents with intent to seduce her to illicit State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 1 intercourse or to compel her for marriage. It is further alleged that on 17.3.2012 in the night in a room constructed outside the Shauchalaya near Kata Nagar, Delhi, the accused Rohan @ Sonu attempted to commit rape upon minor prosecutrix 'K' and also used criminal force upon her with intent to outrage her modesty.
Case of prosecution in brief:
(2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.03.2012 the complainant Rajbir came at the Police Station and gave his statement to the police wherein he has alleged that his daughter 'K', aged about 13 years who was a student of Class 7th in Maninder Public School, Keshav Puram, had gone to the school for her exam but thereafter she did not return back. He has further stated that he had searched for his daughter but could not traced her. He has also given the description of his daughter to the police. The complainant had expressed his suspicion upon the son of his sisterinlaw (Sali) namely Meenu i.e. the accused Rohan @ Sonu as the person who had allured his minor daughter and taken her away.
(3) On this statement of the complainant Rajbir, a rukka was prepared and FIR was registered. During investigations, on 18.3.2012, the prosecutrix 'K' was recovered and the accused Rohan @ Sonu was arrested. After completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 2 CHARGE:
(4) Charge under Section 363/366/376 r/w 511/354 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Rohan @ Sonu to which he pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
EVIDENCE:
(5) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses.
Public witnesses:
(6) PW2 Sandeep Singh Chautala has brought the summoned record i.e. Admission register and the birth certificate of 'K' d/o Rajbir, who was admitted in the school on 04.07.2005 vide Serial No. 1275 in class 1st and her date of birth is 06.09.1999. Copy of the admission register is Ex.PW2/A, birth certificate of above said 'K' is Ex.PW2/B which also shows date of birth of 'K' as 06.09.1999. (Original admission register and birth certificate seen and returned). According to the witness, Seema Ahuja, Principal of our school issued a certificate in respect of the age of the above said 'K' D/O Rajbir vide Ex.PW2/C which bears signatures of Seema Ahuja at point A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and his entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 3 (7) PW3 Rajbir has deposed that earlier he was residing at house No. B4/176, E Keshav Puram, Delhi, and he is doing the business of property dealing. According to him his daughter 'K' is studying in Class VIII in Mata Shri Devi School in Narang Colony. He has deposed that on 12.03.2012 his daughter 'K' was studying in class VII at Maninder Shakti Public School, Keshav Puram. He has deposed that on 12.03.2012 his daughter 'K' went to her school for exam but she did not returned back on which his wife telephoned him and he came back to his house and searched his daughter 'K'. he has further deposed that his sister in law Meenu also informed him that Sonu was also not present at her house on which he suspected that Sonu had taken away his daughter 'K' to some where. He has deposed that on the next day i.e. on 13.03.2012 he went to the police station Keshav Puram and police recorded his statement vide Ex.PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to the witness, on 18.03.2012 his daughter 'K' returned back to his house and the police was called and thereafter police handed over his daughter to him on 19.03.2012 vide Ex.PW3/B. The witness has correctly identified the accused Sonu in the court. (8) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he is a property dealer by profession and used leave at 810 AM and returned back at around 10 PM and is having his office at Tri Nagar. He has admitted that being at work most of the time he does not State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 4 know what happens at his house and most of the events connected with his children are informed to him by his wife. He further admits that even on the date of the incident it was his wife who had informed him about his daughter not having returned back to his home. According to him, he had received a call from wife at 12 noon informing him that his daughter had not returned home. He has denied that his daughter normally returns home at about 1:302:00 PM after the school hours and he is deposing falsely to the extend that he had received a call from his wife at 12 noon and has voluntarily explained that his daughter returns back home at about 11:3012:00 noon whenever there is an exam. He has further deposed that his daughter was having her final exams at the time of the incident and admits that she used to go to the school of her own and come back of her own. He further admits that the accused being closely related to him, being the son of his real sister in law, used to come to his house since the very beginning, and has voluntarily explained that the accused used to come to his house on some festivals or functions along with his family. The witness has admitted that he did not notice anything suspicious or abnormal in the relationship between his daughter and the accused. According to the witness, he had his suspicion on the accused because in the evening he received a call from his sister in law i.e. the mother of the accused that he was not at home. He admits that initially he had no State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 5 suspicion on the accused but it was only when the accused also did not return home that she had his suspicion on him. The witness has denied that his daughter frequently used to come late to the house on the pretext of extra classes and has voluntarily added that his wife never complaint to him about the same. According to the witness, she did not take any tuitions or extra classes any where. He has deposed that his daughter did not have any mobile phone at the time of the incident and after his wife gave him a call that his daughter did not come back, he went to search for her at the house of various friends and also in the neighbourhood. The witness has deposed that he made a complaint to the police on the next day at around 12 noon. He has denied that there was a frequent dispute between him and his wife and that is why his daughter had run away from his house being fed up. The witness has deposed that he had no suspicion on the accused previously and has voluntarily added that he did not like him because his character was not good. On a Court question the witness has explained that previously the accused had run away with some girl from Nizamuddin area and his mother himself used to complaint to them that she is fed up of the accused because he does not work and keeps on loitering in the area through out the day. The witness has deposed that the accused had told the police that the character of the accused was not good and even previously he was involved in a case where he had run away with a girl. The witness was confronted State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 6 with his statement/ complaint Ex.PW3/A where these facts have not been recorded. The witness has denied that he has for the first time made these improvements against the accused only to seek a revenge from him. He has deposed that previously his daughter had never gone out with the accused on any occasion. He has denied that his daughter was having a crush on the accused and she frequently called up the accused and spoke to him or even on the date of the incident it is his daughter who had insisted upon meeting the accused. He has further denied that his daughter/ prosecutrix was fed up of him and his wife as they used to fight very often and did not want to stay with them and therefore she was insisting upon the accused to marry her due to which reason it was his daughter who had called the accused at Pragati Maidan / Chirya Ghar by telephoning to him on his mobile. The witness has denied that despite the prosecutrix not wanting to go back home, it is the accused who left her back home. He has further denied that since he and his wife had already made a complaint to the police therefore they compelled their daughter to make a statement against the accused. He has further denied that the accused has been falsely implicated only to save the reputation of his daughter who had eloped with him.
(9) PW4 Monika is the mother of the prosecutrix and has deposed that earlier they were residing at House No. B4/176 E, Keshav Puram, Delhi. According to the witness 'K' is her daughter State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 7 and she is presently studying in Class VIII. She has deposed that on 12.03.2012 her daughter 'K' was studying in class VII at Keshav Puram and she was aged about 13 years. The witness has further deposed that on the same day 'K' went to her school for her exam but she did not returned back to the house on which she telephoned to her husband Rajbir and informed that 'K' did not returned back to the house and they searched 'K' in the whole area but she did not traced out. She has further deposed that Meenu is her elder sister and Sonu is the son of Meenu. According to the witness, Sonu was also not present at his house and her husband lodged the FIR and they suspected that Sonu took away their daughter 'K'. The witness has deposed that on 18.03.2012 at about 11:00 AM 'K' returned back to our house. She has deposed that she (witness) made inquiries from her and thereafter police was called and police also made inquiries from her. According to the witness, police prepared a recovery memo of her daughter vide Ex.PW4/A and thereafter at the instance of 'K' they along with the police reached at the public toilets behind the golf club and accused Sonu @ Rohan was apprehended and thereafter accused Sonu @ Rohan was arrested vide Ex.PW4/B and his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW4/C. The witness has deposed that thereafter police took her daughter 'K' to the hospital for her medical examination and after medical examination police handed over her daughter 'K' to her vide Ex.PW3/B. According to State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 8 the witness, her daughter 'K' told her that accused Sonu @ Rohan took away and kept her in the public toilets behind the golf club. She has deposed that her daughter 'K' was also produced at Rohini courts before the Ld. MM for recording her statement. The witness has correctly identified the accused Sonu @ Rohan in the court. (10) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that she has two children and the prosecutrix 'K' is her younger daughter and the eldest one is the son who is studying in class 9th. She has deposed that her daughter and her son study in the same school i.e. Mata Shiv Devi school and they both go to the school together and also come back together. She has deposed that at the time of the incident her daughter and her son were studying in different schools. She has deposed that she does not recollect the name of the school where her daughter was studying at the time of the incident and has voluntarily explained that it is in the same area. She has deposed that her son and her daughter did not go to the school together at the time of the incident and has voluntarily explained that the school of her daughter was near the house whereas the school of her son was slightly away. The witness has admitted that the accused being closely related to her, being the son of her real sister, used to come to her house since the very beginning. She further admits that she did not notice anything suspicious or abnormal in the relationship between her daughter and the accused. State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 9 She has denied that her daughter frequently used to come late to the house on the pretext of extra classes and has voluntarily explained that her daughter always came on time and she did not take any tuitions or extra classes any where. She has deposed that her daughter did not have any mobile phone at the time of the incident. Witness has deposed that she waited for her daughter through out the day and only reported to the police on the next day but she is unable to tell the time when her husband went to the police station to made the complaint regarding her missing daughter. The witness has admitted that he had no suspicion on the accused and has voluntarily explained that she only had suspicion when her sister Meenu, the mother of the accused, called up to find out if Rohan was there at her house because he had also not returned home. She has deposed that her daughter has never gone out with the accused on any occasion. The witness has denied that her daughter was having a crush on the accused and she frequently called up the accused and spoke to him or even on the date of the incident it is her daughter who had insisted upon meeting the accused. She has further denied that her daughter/ prosecutrix was fed up of her and her husband and did not want to stay with them and was insisting upon the accused to marry her due to which reason it was her daughter who had called the accused at Pragati Maidan/ Chirya Ghar by telephoning to him on his mobile. The witness has further denied the suggestion that despite the State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 10 prosecutrix not wanting to go back home, it is the accused who left her back home or that since she and her husband had already made a complaint to the police therefore they compelled their daughter to make a statement against the accused. The witness has denied that the accused has been falsely implicated only to save the reputation of her daughter who had eloped with him.
(11) PW7 is the prosecutrix 'K'. She has correctly identified the accused Rohan @ Sonu in the court and states that he used to come her house. According to her, on 12.03.12, at about 11:0011:30 am, when she came outside the school after appearing in the examination, the accused met her at the gate of the school and he enticed her to go with him for visiting Zoo (Chiriya Ghar). She has further deposed that the accused detained her for the whole day and took her to the nearby park and also gave her refreshment and induced her to marry with him saying that they would enjoy and thereafter, he allured her and took her to Narela and kept her in a room which he had arranged through his one friend and confined her in that room for three days. According to the witness, in the day time, he took her outside from that room and in the night, kept her in that room and after 3 days, he took her to a small room situated in a public toilet and during night time, he confined her in that room and did not allow her to talk with her parents. She has deposed that the accused allured her with different types of promises. According to State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 11 the prosecutrix, the accused used to introduce her as cousin sister so nobody suspected them and she did not disclose this fact to anybody due to fear. She has further deposed that in the night time, he used to sleep with her and many times, during this period, he attempted to make physical relations with her but she did not permit the same. The prosecutrix has further deposed that on 17.03.12, the accused again attempted to make physical relations with her but she objected so that he could not succeed in his aim. She has further deposed that again he allured and insisted her to marry him and on seeing the behaviour and bad intention of accused, she found a chance of escaping from the custody of the accused and she went to her house and told all the facts to her mother. The witness has deposed the accused mounted pressure upon her to marry with him and when she was in the custody of the accused before above said period, he had kissed her. She admits that her statement was also recorded. She has further deposed that on 17.03.12, when accused kept her in a small room on that night, accused attempted to make a physical assault on her but he could not get success. She has further deposed that on 19.03.12, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by a Magistrate, same is Ex.PW7/A which bears her signatures and thumb impressions at point A and B respectively. She further deposed that she was also got medically examined from BJRM Hospital State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 12 (12) In her cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the prosecutrix has deposed that the accused is the son of real Mausi and her first cousin and he frequently visits her house in case of any festivals and occasions and is known to her since childhood being relative. She has deposed that the accused has never visited her school prior to this incident. She has further deposed that he has not been telephoning to her at any point of time neither she have called him up at any point of time. She has deposed that she was coming to her house alone when the accused met her on the way. According to the witness, she did not inform her mother before going with the accused to the Chiriya Ghar / Zoo. She has deposed that she also did not make any telephonic call to her mother informing her that she was leaving with the accused. According to the prosecutrix, she had met him on the way after the examination at about 11:30 am. She has deposed that the accused took her to Chiriya Ghar/Zoo. She has denied that she reached at Chiriya Ghar and made a call to the accused. She deposed that the accused took her to Narela in a TSR and then he kept her there where there was no attached toilet in the room and the entry of the said room was from the Gali. She has deposed that she did not go out anywhere to attend a call of nature and admits that the room was situated in the residential area. She has denied that she has sufficient opportunity to leave the room and to raise a alarm which deliberately she did not raise. According to the State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 13 prosecutrix there were no neighbours or persons residing in the vicinity and therefore, she was not having any opportunity to raise an alarm and has voluntarily explained that the said room was situated behind Maszid and the room was on the ground floor. She has deposed that she had been travelling to various places along with the accused in auto and she had not told any auto driver that accused was taking her forcibly nor she raise any alarm over there. She has deposed that there was no guards at the public toilet and has voluntarily explained that he had threatened to kill her parents and therefore, she did not raise any alarm at any point. She has deposed that the accused never made / introduced her to talk to anybody else. She has denied that she was fed up of her family as they used to fight very often and did not want to stay with her family and therefore she was insisting upon the accused to marry with him. The witness has deposed that she did not want to go back home, it is the accused who left her back home. She has also denied that since her parents had already made a complaint to the police therefore they compelled her to make a statement against the accused. She has further denied that the accused has been falsely implicated only to save the her reputation.
Medical Evidence:
(13) PW10 Dr. Rachit has deposed that on 18.03.12, he was on duty as CMO in BJRM Hospital and at about 11:25 pm, patient 'K' State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 14 was brought to the hospital by IO SI Devi Lal with alleged history of sexual assault and was examined by him vide MLC No.39251, same is Ex.PW10/A bearing his signatures at point A and after examining the patient, he referred the patient for further management to SR Gynae.
(14) The witness has further deposed that on 19.03.12, he was on duty as CMO in BJRM Hospital and at about 12:00 am, patient Rohan @ Sonu was brought to the hospital by IO SI Devi Lal whom he examined the patient vide MLC No.39183, same is Ex.PX5 bearing his signatures at point A and B and after examining the patient, he referred the patient for further management to SR Surgery. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and his entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. (15) PW11 Dr. Seema has proved the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Anshu Gupta on the MLC Ex.PW10/A at point A and also her endorsement from point X to X which is Ex.PW11/A at point B having seen her while writing and signing during her course of duties. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and his entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
Police / Official Witnesses:
(16) PW1 HC Ram Singh has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 15 The witness has relied upon documents i.e. FIR No. 62/12 copy of which is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point A (Original has been seen and returned) and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and hence the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(17) PW5 Ct. Saurabh has deposed that on 18.03.12, he was posted as constable at Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day, he joined investigations along with SI Devi Lal. According to the witness, on receipt of the information, he along with SI Devi Lal reached at the house of complainant at B4/176E, Keshav Puram where Smt. Monika, wife of Rajbir produced the girl / prosecutrix 'K' aged about 1314 years before SI Devi Lal and informed that the prosecutrix had come to the house of her own and informed that the son of the Mausi namely Rohan (correctly identified by the witness) allured her away. The witness has deposed that after interrogating the prosecutrix, the IO prepared the recovery memo of the prosecutrix which is Ex.PW4/A. According to the witness, the prosecutrix also informed the IO that she can point out the public toilet where the accused taken her and kept her and thereafter, prosecutrix took them to public toilet near the golf club and when they went there, one boy was standing outside the toilet and the prosecutrix pointed out towards the said boy as Sonu @ Rohan, on State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 16 which the boy was apprehended. The witness has deposed that the arrest memo of the accused was prepared which memo is Ex.PW4/B his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/C and thereafter, the IO gave the information to the police station and both the prosecutrix and accused were taken to BJRM hospital where W/Ct. Nirmala also reached and the medical examination of the accused and the prosecutrix were got conducted. The witness has deposed that after the medical examination of the prosecutrix, the girl was handed over to the mother vide memo Ex.PW3/B. According to the witness, after getting the medical conducted, the doctor handed over the exhibits to the IO who prepared the seizure memo vide Ex.PW5/A and thereafter they returned back to police station after 1:001:30 am (midnight) when the accused was put into lockup and the exhibits were deposited in the Malkhana.
(18) In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that he left the police station along with SI Devi Lal along with Rajbir, the father of the prosecutrix in a private vehicle at about 9:009:30 AM. He is unable to tell if the vehicle belong to Rajbir or IO but it did not belong to him. According to him, they were going to Kalyanpuri where the accused resides but did not reached the house of the accused and has voluntarily added that they had received a call from the house of Rajbir in the meanwhile informing that the prosecutrix had returned home. The State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 17 witness has admitted that he did not hear what the prosecutrix had said to the IO and has voluntarily explained that he did not participate in the proceedings of interrogations of the prosecutrix. He is unable to tell whether the prosecutrix had informed that the accused was first cousin, being the son of the real Mausi. Witness has denied that prosecutrix had told the IO that she had gone with the accused of her own being in close relation with him. He has further denied that they did not go the golf club or the toilet behind the same or that the accused was apprehended at Pragati Maidan where he was standing with his friend namely Gupta from where he was picked up and wrongly detained in the police station and later on falsely implicated in the present case. The witness has further denied that it is prosecutrix herself who had called the accused to Chiriya Ghar/Zoo near Pragati Maidan as she was in love with accused but the accused instead left her back at her house. The witness has also denied that all the documentation was done while sitting in the police station and he signed the same later on the asking of the senior officers. He has denied that he has deposed falsely at the instance and in connivance with the parents of the prosecutrix. (19) PW6 Ct. Sanjay Kumar has deposed that on 18.05.12, he was posted as constable at Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day, on the directions of the SHO, he took three sealed pullandas duly sealed with the seal of BJRM Hospital along with the sample State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 18 seal, FSL letter and RC No.21/12 dated 18.05.12 to FSL, Rohini where he deposited the same and thereafter, he was handed over the receipt by the FSL along with the copy of the RC which he took back to the Police Station and handed over the same to Investigating Officer. The copy of RC is Ex.PW6/A and the receipt is Ex.PW6/B. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and hence the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. (20) PW8 SI Devi Lal has deposed that on 13.03.12, he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day, at about 5:00 PM, Rajbir, complainant came at the Police Station and alleged that his daughter 'K' did not return back from the school and he suspected that had Sonu kidnapped her. The witness has deposed that he recorded statement of Rajbir vide Ex.PW3/A and prepared the rukka Ex.PW8/A and handed over the same to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR No.62/12, further investigation was marked to him and he received the copy of the FIR and original rukka from the Duty Officer and thereafter, he along with complainant searched the victim but she did not trace out. The witness has deposed that on 18.03.12, he along with the complainant went to Kalyan Puri area in search of accused Sonu and victim 'K' and at about 11:00 am, Rajbir, complainant received a telephone call from his wife that victim 'K' reached his house. The witness has deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Saurabh and Rajbir reached State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 19 at the house of Rajbir at B4/176E, Keshav Puram and Smt.Monika produced the 'K' before them and he prepared the recovery memo Ex.PW4/A and thereafter, he interrogated victim 'K' and recorded her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Saurabh, Smt.Monika and victim 'K' reached at the public toilets behind the New Delhi, Golf Club at the instance of victim 'K' and at the instance of 'K' the accused Sonu was apprehended by them from near the public toilet and he was interrogated by him and thereafter, he was arrested vide Ex.PW4/B and his personal was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/C. According to the witness, thereafter, accused Sonu and victim 'K' were taken to the BJRM Hospital and lady Ct.Nirmala was called at the hospital and accused Sonu and victim 'K' were got medically examined. The witness has further deposed that he also collected the both MLCs and the doctor handed over two pullandas in respect of the victim 'K' containing vaginal swab and undergarments of 'K' in sealed condition with the seal of BJRMH J.Puri, Delhi and also handed over two pullandas containing undergarments of the accused Sonu and blood sample in sealed condition with the same seal and also handed over sample seal to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. The witness has deposed that thereafter, he handed over the victim 'K' to her mother vide Ex.PW3/B and also recorded the statement of Monika and thereafter, they returned back to police State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 20 station along with the accused Sonu and he deposited the seized articles in the Malkhana. The witness has deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses victim 'K' along with her mother came at the police station and thereafter, they reached at the Rohini Courts where the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC by the Ld. MM.
(21) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that they went to Kalyanpuri in a private vehicle which was hired by him but he does not remember the registration number and name of driver of that private vehicle. According to the witness, they had paid rent to him about Rs.600. He has denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the Kalyanpuri in a private vehicle. According to the witness, at about 1:00 pm, they reached at the house of complainant where Monika produced victim 'K' before them but she did not tell him that she had gone with accused Sonu herself voluntarily. The witness has denied that the victim 'K' informed him that she had gone with accused Sonu for herself voluntarily. According to the witness, no public person was present when accused Rohan @ Sonu was apprehended by them. He has denied that the accused Sonu was apprehended at Pragati Maidan where he was standing with his friend namely Gupta from where he was picked up and wrongly detained in the police station and later on falsely implicated in this case. The witness has deposed that he had State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 21 made inquiries regarding the presence of attendant in the toilet and was told that there was a guard on duty but he did not found any guard. He admits that toilet was manned by NDMC but he did not make any inquiries from NDMC regarding guard on duty. According to the witness, he did not make any inquiries as to who was responsible for cleaning the toilet that is, whether it was outsourced or being done by NDMC employees. He has denied that he had deliberately concealed these details regarding the guard and the 'Safai Karamchari' on duty as it did not suit the version put forward by him in the charge sheet and would have helped the accused. He admits that there is a gate on the entry of toilet but he is unable to tell if the gate of the toilet closes at 10:00 pm and opened at 9:00 am in the morning. The witness is not aware if the maintenance of the entire toilet had been given to a private contractor by the NDMC and the facilities are paid. He has denied that the victim 'K' herself called the accused Sonu at Zoo near Pragati Maidan as she was in love with him but the accused Sonu instead left her back at her house. He has further denied that all the documents were prepared by him at the police station and obtained the signatures of Rajbir, Monika and Ct. Saurabh at the PS later on. Witness has further denied that he had not conducted the fair, free and independent investigations in the present case. State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 22 (22) PW9 ASI Beena has deposed that on 14.05.12, he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram and on that day, investigation of this case was handed over to her and on 15.05.12, he recorded the statement of victim 'K'. She has deposed that on 18.05.12, exhibits of this case was sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Sanjay. She has further deposed that she recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, she submitted charge sheet against accused Rohan @ Sonu. She has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused and her entire testimony has gone uncontroverted. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(23) After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure in which all the incriminating evidence / material was put to him which he has denied. The accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, he never taken away the prosecutrix anywhere and that in fact on the date of incident, it was the prosecutrix who had called him by telephone at Zoo and after visiting the Zoo, he left her to her house at about 2:30 PM. The accused has stated that the prosecutrix is in his relation being daughter of is mausi. According to the accused, his mother and mausi are both Mohammadans, his grandfather/ nana being a Muslim but his mausi i.e. mother of the prosecutrix married interreligion / State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 23 intercaste and his mausa is a Hindu belonging to Balmiki community. The accused has further stated that his y natural father who is the first husband of his mother was a Hindu but now his mother had married a Muslim. He has stated that it is on account of the difference in religion and the caste that there is an objection for himself in the family of the prosecutrix. He has further stated that the prosecutrix used to make phone calls to him but he never took advantage of the same. According to the accused, the allegations against him are incorrect and fabricated and that he did not do anything wrong with the prosecutrix and no sexual assault had been committed by him upon her. He has stated that the prosecutrix has deposed against him at the instance of her parents.
FINDINGS:
(24) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused. I have also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and also the written memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused. My findings are as under:
Identity of the Accused:
(25) The identity of the accused is not disputed since he was known to the family of the prosecutrix as he was related to her being her first cousin (i.e. son of real mausi of the prosecutrix). Even State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 24 otherwise, he has been specifically named in the FIR and also correctly identified in the court by the prosecutrix and her parents. I hold that the identity of the accused stands established.
Age of the Prosecutrix (26) Case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the incident. In order to support its version, the prosecution has placed on record the date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix Ex. PW2/B issued by the SubRegistrar (Birth and Death) showing her date of birth as 6.9.1999. The said date of birth certificate has been registered on 14.9.1999. PW2 Sandeep Singh Chautala has brought the admission register of the school which also shows the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 6.9.1999 and contains copy of said certificate on the basis of which the said entry was made in the school record. The entire testimony of this witness has gone uncontroverted and hence I hold that the on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was aged between 12 to 13 years (which fact has also been duly proved by the parents of the prosecutrix i.e. PW3 Rajibir and PW4 Monika) proving thereby that the prosecutrix had not even attained the age of consent.
Medical Evidence:
(27) Dr. Rachit (PW10) and Dr. Seema (PW11) have duly proved the medical examination of the prosecutrix and the accused State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 25 vide MLC Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PX5 (accused does not dispute his MLC). Dr. Rachit has proved that on 18.3.2012 at about 11:25 PM, the prosecutrix 'K' was produced in the hospital by the IO SI Devi Lal with alleged history of sexual assault after kidnapping on 17.3.2012. No gross external injury was seen on the body and genitalia of the prosecutrix and according to the victim herself, there was no sexual intercourse. The Gyane. has proved that there was no injury mark and the hymen was intact and as per the findings "the victim has not gone through sexual intercourse". In view of the aforesaid, it stands established that no sexual intercourse had taken place.
Allegations against the accused:
(28) The case of the prosecution is that the accused who is aged around 20 years had enticed and allured the minor prosecutrix 'K' who is his first cousin (being the daughter of his reals mausi) and taken her away. It is alleged that he has induced her for marriage and thereafter confined her in a room for three days and during this period he attempted to make physical relations with her which she objected and therefore he could not succeeded in his designs and on seeing his bad behaviour and intention the prosecutrix escaped from his custody. The most important material witness in this regard, is the prosecutrix herself. The relevant portion of the testimony of the State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 26 prosecutrix 'K' (PW7) is reproduced as under:
"Accused present in the court today (correctly identified) used to come my house. On 12.03.12, at about 11:0011:30 am, when I came outside the school after appearing in the examination, accused present in the court today met me at the gate of the school and he enticed me for visiting Zoo (Chiriya Ghar). Accused detained me for the whole day and took me to the nearby park and also gave me refreshment and induced me to marry with him saying that we will enjoy. Thereafter, he allured me and took me to Narela and kept me in a room which he had arranged through his one friend. Accused confined me in that room for three days. In the day time, he took me outside from that room and in the night, kept me in that room. After 3 days, he took me to a small room situated in a public toilet. During night time, he confined me in that room and did not allow me to talk with my parents. Accused allured me with different types of promises. Accused used to introduce me as cousin sister so nobody suspects on us. I did not disclose this fact to anybody due to fear. In the night time, he used to sleep with me and many times, during this period, he attempted to make physical relations with me but I did not permit the same. On 17.03.12, he again attempted to make physical relations with me but I objected so that he could not success in his aim. Again he allured and insisted me to marry him. On seeing the behaviour and bad intention of accused, I found a chance of escaping from the custody of the accused and I State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 27 went to my house and told all the facts to my mother. Accused mounted pressure upon me to marry with him. When I was in the custody of the accused before above said period, he had kissed me. My statement was also recorded. On 17.03.12, when accused kept me in a small room on that night, accused attempted to make a physical assault on me but he could not get success. On 19.03.12, my statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by a Magistrate, same is Ex.PW7/A which bears my signatures and thumb impressions at point A and B respectively. I was got medically examined from BJRM Hospital."
(29) The prosecutrix 'K' has been cross examined at length and she has proved that the accused used to frequently visit her house in case of any festivals being closely related to her (being son of her real mausi). She has admitted that when she went with the accused, she did not make telephone call to her mother. Here I may observe that even if she would have gone with the accused with her own consent, it would make not difference since at the time of the incident she was below 16 years of age and her consent if any becomes immaterial. A specific suggestion was made to the prosecutrix that she was fed up with her family as her parents used to fight each other and therefore she did not want to stay with them, which she has denied. She has also denied that she did not want to go home and it was the accused who left her back home.
State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 28 (30) Coming now to the testimony of the father of the prosecutrix i.e. PW3 Rajbir who has proved that his daughter was studying in Class 9th in Maninder Shakti Public School and on 12.3.2012 she had gone to her school for her exam but did not returned thereafter after which his wife got worried and made a telephone to him on which he immediately returned home and tried to search for his daughter. He has further stated that he came to know that the son of his sisterinlaw (Sali) namely Meenu i.e. the accused Rohan @ Sonu was also not present at his house and therefore he suspected that he (Rohan @ Sonu) had taken away his daughter and thereafter he got the present case registered against him. In his cross examination, the witness Rajbir has admitted that the accused Sonu used to visit his house being closely related on festivals or functions along with his family. He has admitted that he did not notice anything suspicious or abnormal in the relationship between his daughter and the accused. According to him he had his suspicion upon the accused because in the evening he received a call from his sisterinlaw (i.e. mother of the accused) that he was not at home. He has denied that his daughter frequently used to come home late to the house on the pretext of extra classes. He has further explained that he did not like Sonu because his character was not good. On specific quarrey from the court, the witness has explained that even previously the accused Sonu had run away with some girl State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 29 from Nizamuddin area on which his mother used to complaint to them (witness) that she was fed up with him as he was not doing any work and used to keep on loitering in the area throughout the day. These are the facts which the witness has never mentioned before and have emerged during his cross examination showing that he had suspicion upon the accused who was their close relative. He has denied that he and his wife used to frequently quarrel and therefore his daughter 'K' has left them and went away.
(31) Coming now the testimony of Monika (PW4) the mother of the prosecutrix who has corroborated what has been stated by her husband Rajbir (PW3) and proved that on 12.3.2012 the prosecutrix 'K' who had gone to her school did not return on which she got worried and immediately called up her husband and thereafter she came to know that the accused Rohan @ Sonu who is the son of her real sister was also missing from his house. According to Monika, on 18.3.2012 at about 11:00 AM, her daughter 'K' returned back to her house and she made inquiries from her and thereafter police was called. She has further corroborated the testimony of her husband that her daughter / the prosecutrix 'K' had taken them to public toilet behind the Golf Club from where the accused was apprehended because her daughter had told her that during this period the accused had kept her in a toilet behind the Golf Club. She was cross examined at length and she has explained that at the time of the State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 30 incident the prosecutrix was studying in school which is in the same area and that she had never noticed anything suspicious between the accused and the prosecutrix. She has denied that the prosecutrix had a crush at the accused and she frequently contact the accused and even on the date of incident it was her daughter who has insisted to meet the accused.
(32) The case put forward by the prosecution is crystal clear and there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix. The accused in his statement under section 313 Cr. PC has admitted that on the date of incident he was with the prosecutrix. He has tried to give a twist to the case and has denied that he had not taken the prosecutrix to anywhere and it was the prosecutrix herself at Zoo and after visiting the Zoo the left her at her house in the evening. He has stated that the mother of the prosecutrix was a Mohommadan and his grand father is a Muslim but the mother of the prosecutrix had married intercaste and his father is a Hindu. According to the accused his natural father who is the first husband of his mother was a Hindu but now his mother is married to a Mohammadan and hence there is difference in religion between him and the family of the prosecutrix. According to the accused it was the prosecutrix who used to make telephone calls to him but he never took advantage of the same. He has also stated that he did not do anything wrong upon the prosecutrix and no sexual assault had been committed upon her. State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 31 (33) It therefore stands confirmed through from the admissions made by the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr. P. C. that in so far as the allegations of kidnapping are concerned, they stand established. The prosecutrix is below 16 years of age (around 1314 years) and the accused being a major (around 20 years of age) and also being first cousin of the prosecutrix under no circumstances had any business to have taken away the prosecutrix out of the custody of her parents without their permission. Even if the prosecutrix had accompanied the accused of her own, the accused was under an obligation to inform her parents or to have brought her home on the same day, which he did not do. It is writ large that prosecutrix was missing from 12.3.2012 and had returned only on 18.3.2012 and during this period she claimed that she was with the accused which facts find due corroboration from the testimonies of her parents and police officials who had been searching for her during this period and there is no reason to doubt her version. Prosecutrix is a young of impressionable age girl not well versed with worldly affairs who had been enticed and allured by the accused, her own first cousin. She has specifically deposed that the accused had taken her various places and also took her to Narela where he kept her in a room and also kept her in a public toilet near Golf Club and it was the same public toilet from where the accused was arrested. Though version of the prosecutrix that she was kept in State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 32 a public toilet overnight, does not inspire confidence of the court because of the reason that it is an admitted case of the Investigating Officer that public toilet at Golf Club is supposed to have a guard / chwokidar who mans the same being NDMC area and it is impossible that a girl wearing school dress sitting whole day in a public toilet would have escaped the notice of all. However the possibility of her being in the public toilet at least for some time, cannot be ruled out. Be that if the case may be, the accused has not led any evidence in defence to prove that it was he who had left the prosecutrix at the house of her parents or that what steps he took to inform her parents or bring her back. How ever the facts were into the special knowledge of the accused (as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act) and (should have been explained by him which he has not done).
(34) In view of the above, I hereby hold that keeping in view the background as pointed by the father of the prosecutrix that the accused Sonu had previously eloped along with a girl at Nizamuddin area and is facing trial, which fact the accused has not controverted, I am inclined to believe the version given by the young prosecutrix for there is no reason for her to have lied or falsely implicated her own first cousin. I, therefore hold that the accused Rohan @ Sonu is liable for the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code. Further, in view of the specific statement made by the prosecutrix that during State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 33 this period the accused tried to make physical relations with her and even kissed her, which aspect has not been controverted by the accused, he is also liable for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(35) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 34 (36) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigations conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officer. On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses, medical and circumstantial evidence on record the following facts stand established:
➢ That the accused Rohan is closely related to the prosecutrix 'K' being son of her real mausi.
➢ That at the time of the incident the prosecutrix 'K' was minor aged between 1213 years (below age of consent i.e. 16 years). ➢ That on 12.3.2012 when the prosecutrix 'K' came out of the gate of her school after appearing in the examination, the accused Rohan @ Sonu met her and he enticed her for visiting Zoo.
➢ That the accused detained the prosecutrix 'K' for the whole day and thereafter he took her to Narela and kept her in a room where he confined her for three days.
➢ That during her stay with the accused, the accused tired to make physical relations with the prosecutrix 'K' but could not succeed as the prosecutrix resisted and did not permit the same.
State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 35 ➢ That during this period which the prosecutrix stayed with the accused, he allured her and mounted pressure on her insisting her that she should marry him and also kissed her. (37) However, the medical evidence which has come on record, shows that there was no injury marks on the body of the prosecutrix 'K' and her hymen was intact thereby establishing that there was no sexual intercourse with her.
(38) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 36 and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link, in so far as the allegations under Section 363 and 354 IPC, are concerned.
(39) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused Rohan @ Sonu had taken the away the minor prosecutrix 'K' without permission of her parents and tried to make physical relations with her with intention to outrage her modesty, for which I hold the accused Rohan @ Sonu guilty of the offence under Section 363/ 354 Indian Penal Code [not under Section 366 and 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code] and convict him accordingly.
(40) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 31.10.2012.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 26.10.2012 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 37
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 45/2012
Unique Case ID: 02404R0147152012
State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu
S/o Late Sh. Sunil
R/o H Block, Kalyanpuri
Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 62/2012
Police Station : Keshav Puram
Under Section : 363/366/354/376/511 IPC
Date of conviction : 26.10.2012
Arguments heard on : 31.10.2012
Date of Sentence : 1.11.2012
APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Rohan @ Sonu in judicial custody with Ms. Neelam Singh, Advocate/ Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment dated 26.10.2012, the accused Rohan @ Sonu has been held guilty of the offence under Section State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 38 363/ 354 Indian Penal Code [not under Section 366 and 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code].
As per the allegations, on 12.3.2012 at Mahinder Public School, Keshav Puram, the accused Rohan @ Sonu kidnapped the prosecutrix 'K' a minor aged about 13 years, out of the lawful guardianship of her parents with intent to seduce her to illicit intercourse or to compel her for marriage. It has also been alleged that on 17.3.2012 in the night in a room constructed outside the Shauchalaya near Kata Nagar, Delhi, the accused Rohan @ Sonu attempted to commit rape upon minor prosecutrix 'K' and also used criminal force upon her with intent to outrage her modesty.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various witnesses particularly the prosecutrix 'K' (PW7), her father Rajbir (PW3), her mother Monika (PW4), the medical and other circumstantial evidence on record, vide a detailed judgment dated 26.10.2012 this Court has observed that it stood established that the accused Rohan is closely related to the prosecutrix 'K' being son of her real mausi; that at the time of the incident the prosecutrix 'K' was minor aged between 1213 years (below age of consent i.e. 16 years); that on 12.3.2012 when the prosecutrix 'K' came out of the gate of her school after appearing in the examination, the accused Rohan @ Sonu met her and he enticed her for visiting Zoo; that the accused detained the prosecutrix 'K' for the whole day and thereafter he took her to Narela State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 39 and kept her in a room where he confined her for three days; that during her stay with the accused, the accused tired to make physical relations with the prosecutrix 'K' but could not succeed as the prosecutrix resisted and did not permit the same; that during this period which the prosecutrix stayed with the accused, he allured her and mounted pressure on her insisting her that she should marry him and also kissed her. However, the medical evidence which has come on record, showed that there was no injury marks on the body of the prosecutrix 'K' and her hymen was intact thereby establishing that there was no sexual intercourse with her.
In view of the above, the accused Rohan @ Sonu has been held guilty of the offence under Section 363 and 354 Indian Penal Code [not under Section 366 and 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code] and accordingly convicted.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Rohan @ Sonu is stated to be a young boy 20 years of age, unmarried, totally illiterate and was doing private job for his livelihood. He has a family comprising of father, mother, two brothers and one sister. He is first time offender and has no criminal background and has already remained in judicial custody for a period of Seven Months and Thirteen Days.
Ld. Defence Counsel for the convict has vehemently argued that the a lenient view be taken against the convict keeping in State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 40 view his young age and the fact that he is not a habitual criminal. She has argued that the convict is a helping hand of his family and any stern view would be prejudicial not only to the convict but also to his entire family. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has argued that the convict deserves no leniency and keeping in view the nature of offence, a strict punishment be awarded to the convict.
I have considered the rival contentions. The convict is a young boy of 20 years. Though it has been alleged that even previously he had got involved in a case at Nizamuddin yet the details of the said case has not been placed before this Court. I may observe that the convict Rohan @ Sonu is not a habitual criminal but his act of enticing and alluring his minor cousin hardly aged 13 years and taking her away with him from the lawful guardianship of her parents with intent to force or seduce her to illicit intercourse, is morally, socially, outrageous and legally impermissible. This being the background, I award the following sentence to the convict Rohan @ Sonu:
1. For the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code, the convict Rohan @ Sonu is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Week.
State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 41
2. For the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code, the convict Rohan @ Sonu is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Week.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
The convict has been informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs and another be attached along with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 01.11.2012 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Rohan @ Sonu, FIR No. 62/2012, PS Keshav Puram Page 42