Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramender Singh S/O Shri Laturi Singh ... on 29 July, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF MS.SUNITA GUPTA; DISTRICT JUDGE VII (NE)
CUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI:
Sessions Case No. 15/10
Unique ID Number: 02402RO024452010
State Vs. Ramender Singh S/o Shri Laturi Singh R/o E2213, 4th
Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No.: 24/09.
Police Station : Sonia Vihar Delhi
Under Section : 376/506 IPC
Date of Institution : 24.2.2010
Date reserving judgment/order : 15.7.2010.
Date of pronouncement : 26.7.2010
JUDGMENT
1. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is as follows:
On 29.11.2009 on receipt of DD No.24A, SI Gaje Singh alongwith Constable Parmod reached the spot where Smt. Neeru (name changed) alongwith her father Randhir Singh met and gave her statement regarding commission of rape upon her by her fatherinlaw. She was taken to GTB Hospital where she was got medically examined. During the course of investigation, site plan was prepared. Accused was arrested. He was got medically examined. Exhibits were taken into possession and same were SC No.15/10 Page 1 of 37 2 sent to FSL. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 376/506 IPC.
2. After the case was committed to the court of Sessions, arguments on charge were heard. Prima facie a case for the offence under section 376/506 IPC was made out against the accused. Charge was framed accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses, namely, Randhir Singh (PW1), Head Constable Sandeep (PW2), Dr. Sumit (PW3), Neeru (PW4), Dr.Renuka Gupta (PW5), Head Constable Jamil Khan (PW6), Poonam Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini (PW7), Constable Satbir (PW8), Constable Sadhna (PW9), Constable Parmod (PW10) and ASI Gaje Singh (PW11).
Randhir Singh (PW1) is father of the prosecutrix. He has deposed that his daughter Neeru was married with Amar Bahadur. After marriage, his daughter used to reside at Sonia Vihar. On 29.11.2009 he received a call from his daughter who informed him regarding commission of rape upon her by her fatherinlaw namely Ramender Singh. He alongwith 34 other persons went to the residence of his daughter and at that time, Ravi (Devar) and grand fatherinlaw of the prosecutrix were present. He enquired from his daughter who narrated all the facts to him. Thereafter he informed the police at 100 number. Police reached the spot and thereafter his daughter was taken to Police Station and then to GTB Hospital where she was medically examined.
SC No.15/10 Page 2 of 37 3 Head Constable Sandeep (PW2) has deposed that on 30.11.2009, he was working as MHCM and six sealed parcels were deposited with him by ASI Gaje Singh regarding which he made an entry in store room register at serial No.55, copy of which is Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that on 23.1.209 these six sealed parcels were sent to FSL Rohini through constable Satyavir vide Road Certificate No. 03/09.
Dr.Sumit (PW3) deposed that on 30.11.2009 he was working as CMO in GTB Hospital and Dr.Sudhanshu Shekhar was working under his supervision as Junior Resident. . On that day Ramender Singh was brought by Constable Parmod for his medical examination with alleged history of committing sexual assault on 28.11.2009. He proved MLC Ex.PW3/A prepared by Dr. Sudhanshu vide which it was opined that there was nothing to suggest that person was not capable to perform sexual intercourse. He further deposed that semen sample could not be collected as the person was not cooperative. However, blood sample and undergarment were sealed and handed over to Constable Parmod.
Neeru, (PW4) is the prosecutrix herself. Her testimony will be discussed later on.
Dr.Renuka Gupta (PW5) has deposed that on 30.11.2009 she examined the prosecutrix. There was no sign of physical assault. On local examination, her hymen was found torn and vagina admitted two fingers easily. Sample of pubic hair, vaginal smear and clothes of the victim were sealed and given to lady Constable Sadhna. Clothes which the victim was SC No.15/10 Page 3 of 37 4 wearing at the time of incident, were changed by her but she had brought the same with her. She prepared MLC of the victim Ex.PW5/A. Head Constable Jamil Khan (PW6) was working as duty officer on 30.11.2009. He recorded FIR of this case on the basis of tehrir sent by ASI Gaje Singh, copy of which is Ex.PW6/A. Poona Sharma, Senior Scientific Assistant (Bio) FSL Rohini (PW7) has deposed that on 23.12.2009 she examined the clothes, pubic hair, micro slides having whitish smear, one underwear, blood sample and blood gauze contained in six sealed parcels and gave reports Ex.PW7/A and PW7/B. She opined that human semen was detected on Exhibit 1a i.e. petticoat.
Constable Satbir (PW8) has deposed with regard to deposition of six sealed parcels with FSL Rohini on 23.12.2009.
Constable Sadhna (PW9) had taken the prosecutrix to GTB Hospital on 29.11.09 for her medical examination. After medical examination of the prosecutrix, three sealed parcels were given to her by the doctor which she handed over to the investigating officer who in turn seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. Constable Parmod (PW10) has deposed that on 29.11.2009, he alongwith ASI Gaje Singh, (PW 11), Investigating Officer of the case went to house No.E2/313, 3rd Pushta, Sonia Vihar, where prosecutrix alongwith her father and other persons met them. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. One lady Constable Sadhna was also called there by the Investigating Officer and prosecutrix was sent to GTB Hospital for her medical examination. He took tehrir to the Police Station for getting the case SC No.15/10 Page 4 of 37 5 registered and thereafter he handed over the copy of the FIR to the Investigating Officer. In pursuance to an information having been received by the Investigating Officer regarding presence of the accused at Annapurna Mandir, near Sonia Vihar, near 5th Pushta, accused was overpowered at the instance of secret informer. He was arrested and his arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW10/A and PW10/B. Accused was taken to GTB Hospital for getting his medical examination done. After his medical examination doctor gave him three sealed parcels, sealed with the seal of GTB Hospital and one sample seal which he handed over to the Investigating officer who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW10/C. ASI Gaje Singh (PW11), Investigating Officer of the case, deposed on the same lines as that of PW10 Constable Parmod. He has further added that he prepared site plan Ex.PW11/B at the instance of complainant. He also recorded statement of Randhir Singh, father of the prosecutrix. He deposited the case property in the malkhana and accused was put behind the bars and later on was produced before the court and sent to JC. He got sent the case property to FSL Rohini through Constable Satbir, recorded statement of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, submitted the challan.
4. All the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him while recording his statement under section 313 Cr.PC wherein he denied the case of prosecution and pleaded his innocence. He further stated that immediately after the marriage of his daughter in law she started residing with her husband Amar Bahadur in Faridabad as she was not SC No.15/10 Page 5 of 37 6 willing to do house hold work and was adamant to stay away from her in laws family. As her husband always remained busy in his duty hours, she developed illicit relationship with her uncle Rajiv Singh to which he (accused) used to object and hence she was left at her parental home by her husband. He tried to rectify her mistake but she did not mend her ways and left her matrimonial house alongwith her father and chacha. For the last one year, she was staying at her parental home and had come to stay at her matrimonial home on the eve of Karva Chauth, i.e. one and half month prior to the date of incident and since 29.11.2009, she is residing with her father. He has further added that prosecutrix wanted to grab the property of her mother in law at any cost and for this reason, with criminal intent, she had also got registered another FIR No.207/2010, P.S. Nangloi, under section 498A/406/34 IPC implicating his wife Smt. Munni Devi, daughter in law Shailender and his sons Amar, Ravi and Vansh on false and frivolous allegations of demand of dowry and harassment and physical assault etc. apart from the present case of rape against him. He used to rectify the mistakes of his daughter in law and objected to her illicit relations with her uncle Rajiv Singh. Accused has examined four witnesses in his defence namely Chander Kant (DW1), Head Constable Partap Singh (DW2), Kishan Pal (DW3) and Amar Bahadur (DW4).
5. I have heard Shri Subhash Chauhan ld. Addl. PP for the State and Shri Dharmender Kumar ld. counsel for the accused and have carefully gone through the record.
SC No.15/10 Page 6 of 37 7
6. It was submitted by ld. counsel for the accused that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of the prosecutrix in as much as although in her complaint Ex.PW4/A she stated that after marriage, her fatherinlaw had attempted to commit wrong act with her but due to her protest he became silent. However, in cross examination, she stated that prior to the date of occurrence, accused did not make any indecent comments/fun. Further more, he referred to the conduct of the prosecutrix for submitting that if any such attempt has been made by the accused, prosecutrix would have protested but she admitted that she did not scratch the accused with nails nor raised any alarm as such there was no resistance on the part of the prosecutrix in the alleged commission of offence. No sign of physical assault was found on her medical examination. Further more, it was submitted that her testimony that due to complete penetration there was slight bleeding and she also felt slight pain, is unbelievable in as much as she is a married lady. That being so, there was no question of bleeding or pain. Moreover, on her petticoat, no blood stains were noticed by the experts. Further more, according to her, she had given a written complaint to the police at her house but no such complaint has been placed on record. It was further submitted that in the complaint Ex.PW4/A she had stated that she informed about the incident to her mother and father. However, her father Randhir Singh deposed that he had received call from his daughter who informed him about the incident but the prosecutrix in her deposition has stated that when she telephoned at her parental house, she had stated to her mother about the mishappening with her. At that time, her father was not present at his house as he had gone to SC No.15/10 Page 7 of 37 8 Ghaziabad as such it was submitted that there is no corroboration and the witnesses have contradicted each other.
7. It was further submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused from the testimony of Dr.Sumit who has deposed that semen sample could not be collected as accused was not cooperating by submitting that accused is aged about 59 years and despite best efforts of masturbation, he could not give his semen sample. It was further submitted that the present complaint has been filed by the prosecutrix in order to grab property belonging to her mother in law. Moreover, the prosecutrix was having illicit relations with her uncle, she was noticed by her husband also and thereafter the prosecutrix has filed a false complaint in CAW Cell against the present accused and his other family members. It was submitted that in view of the foregoing submissions, prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such accused is entitled to be acquitted.
8. Rebutting the contentions of ld. counsel for the accused, it was submitted by ld. Addl. PP that the testimony of the prosecutrix herself is sufficient to convict the accused and no independent corroboration is required. In the instant case, accused is fatherinlaw of the prosecutrix and it can not be believed that without any rhyme or reason she would lodge a false complaint against him knowing it fully well that after lodging such a complaint, her matrimonial life will be at stake. He further referred to her testimony that the accused used to make fun with the family members including the prosecutrix however, she used to take that fun in a routine SC No.15/10 Page 8 of 37 9 manner but could not understand the evil designs of the mind of her father inlaw. As regards the protest, it was submitted that she has deposed hat since the accused has threatened to kill her and her family in case she raised alarm therefore, prosecutrix could not raise alarm. As regards the other submissions as to who has received the telephone call of the prosecutrix , it was submitted that the discrepancy is very minor and such minor discrepancies are liable to be ignored. It was further submitted that husband of the prosecutrix used to live in Faridabad and she has deposed that she had sex with her husband 23 months prior to the date of incident and on her petticoat semen was detected which support her version. Further more, the accused declined to give his semen sample which is a very strong piece of evidence going against the accused because if he had given his semen sample, same would have been matched with the semen found on the petticoat of the prosecutrix. Moreover, as regards the defence taken by the accused that complaint has been lodged with a view to grab the property belonging to her mother in law, it was submitted that prosecutrix is not going to gain anything by lodging this complaint against the accused because if that is so, even now she is not going to get property belonging to her mother in law. As regards the plea that prosecutrix was having illicit relations with her uncle, it was submitted that husband of the prosecutrix appeared as a defence witness and he stated that even he noticed the prosecutrix in a compromising position with her uncle, but he did not inform the police nor filed any divorce petition against his wife rather continued to live with her. As such it was submitted that it is a false plea taken by accused which has no SC No.15/10 Page 9 of 37 10 legs to stand. On the other hand, testimony of prosecutrix finds corroboration from the medical and expert evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve the same as such prosecution has been able to bring home record of the case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted. Reliance was placed on 2007 VII AD (S.C.) 143 B.C.Deva @ Dyava vs. State of Karnataka and 2009 III AD (Cr.) DHC ) 219 Karan Singh vs. State.
9. I have given my considerable thought to the respective submissions made by ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
10. Testimonial potency of version of a victim of rape cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under section 118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must be attached in evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or a witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act, which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for corroboration SC No.15/10 Page 10 of 37 11 required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required in to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding, the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Chander Prakash Keval Chand Jain (1990 (1) SCC
550).
11. I may also refer to a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajoo and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. 2009 I AD (S.C.) 37 = 2008 (15) SCALE 375, where it has been held :
"The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no selfrespecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The SC No.15/10 Page 11 of 37 12 testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be selfinflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of SC No.15/10 Page 12 of 37 13 suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable."
12. In another case of S.Ramakrishna vs. The State 2008 (11) JT 635, Hon'ble Apex Court while delivering judgment also observed:
"A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( in short "the Evidence Act") nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must received the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence ...."
In the case of Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2214, some relevant observations are reproduced here under:
"A prosecutrix of a sexoffence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fat a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under section 118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of SC No.15/10 Page 13 of 37 14 care and caution must be attached in evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or a witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence act') similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required in to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding, the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658."
13. This proposition of law has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh 1996 (2) SCC 384, Karan Singh (Supra), Nannu Gupta @ Bablu vs. The State SC No.15/10 Page 14 of 37 15 2010 II AD (Delhi) 117 and 2010 I AD (Delhi) 130 Mohinder Singh Bhatti vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
14. This being the legal position, let us turn to the case in hand.
15. I have analyzed the evidence on record in order to appreciate the respective contentions of ld. Counsel for the parties.
16. The prosecutrix in her deposition clearly and unequivocally stated that she was married to Amar Babadur on 30.4.2006. Her husband was working in a hospital at Faridabad and she used to reside at her matrimonial house at Sonia Vihar. Her husband used to come after a week or so. She used to treat her fatherinlaw Ramender Singh as her father. Ramender Singh used to make fun with the family members including her and she used to regard that fun in a routine normal manner but could not understand the bad designs of the mind of Ramender Singh behind that fun. On 28.11.2009, besides her and the accused, her brotherinlaw (Dewar) and grand fatherinlaw were present in the house. At about 11.00 p.m. she was sleeping in her room. Her fatherinlaw called her inside his room. She went outside her room and stood outside the room of her fatherinlaw and asked him as to what was the matter. Suddenly, he caught hold of her hand, dragged her inside his room and switched off all the lights of that room. He forcibly made her to lay on his bed and forcefully committed rape upon her against her consent. She tried to raise alarm but accused put his hand on her mouth and did not allow her to raise alarm. Accused threatened her to kill if she happened to narrate regarding the untoward incident to anybody. Thereafter she went to her room. She could not contact and inform anyone regarding the incident as SC No.15/10 Page 15 of 37 16 she was not having any phone with her. On the next morning, at 6.30 or 7.00 a.m. when accused went outside the house for his work, she made a telephone call from the phone of one of his neighbour and contacted her husband but he disconnected her telephone and did not talk to her. Then she made a call to her mother and narrated about the mishappening who in turn, informed about the incident to her father as at that time, her father was not present at the house and had gone to Ghaziabad. Her father alongwith her brother and uncle came to her matrimonial house and she narrated the incident to them. Her father informed the police at 100 number. Police came there and recorded her statement Ex.PW4/A. She was sent to GTB Hospital and was got medically examined. Her clothes, which she was wearing at the time of incident, were produced by her and same were seized. She identified her clothes i.e. petticoat, blouse and saree as Ex.P1 collectively. She has been put to lengthy crossexamination by the defence, but her testimony has not been shattered on material aspect. She stated in the crossexamination that when accused put off the lights, she could not run from that room as he was holding her hand. She tried to resist by pushing him but could not succeed. The suggestion of the accused that she wanted to grab the property in connivance of her father has been categorically denied by her.
17. The testimony of the prosecutrix has been challenged by ld. defence counsel on the ground that she was medically examined by Dr. Renuka Gupta (PW5) and on medical examination, the doctor did not find any sign of physical assault. Absence of injury mark on the private part of the prosecutrix belie her statement about the commission of rape upon her. SC No.15/10 Page 16 of 37 17 Moreover, the prosecutrix admitted in cross examination that she did not try to scratch the accused with her nails nor she raised any alarm nor her clothes got torn. As such it was submitted that testimony of the prosecutrix is not reliable and convincing in as much as no resistance was put forth by her at the time of alleged commission of rape.
18. This submission of ld. Defence counsel has no substance because, it has come in the testimony of the prosecutrix that she did try to raise alarm but accused put his hand on her mouth and did not allow her to raise alarm and threatened to kill her and her family in case she raised an alarm. She had tried to resist by pushing the accused but could not succeed.
19. B.C.Deva (Supra) was also a case where no injury was found on any part of the prosecutrix and it was alleged that this fact clearly belied the version of prosecution in regard to sexual assault upon her by the accused. In that case, it was found that when the prosecutrix had gone for taking meals, accused suddenly came from behind, snatched the tiffin box from her hand and put his one hand on her mouth and thereafter laid her on the ground. He lifted her saree and petticoat, opened the zip of his trouser and removed his underwear and then committed forcible sexual assault upon her. After committing the crime, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. As regards the contention of ld. defence counsel that absence of injury mark on the private part belies her testimony about the rape committed upon her, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"The plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the person of the accused or the person of the prosecutrix, does not lead to any inference SC No.15/10 Page 17 of 37 18 that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix. Though the report of the gynaecologist pertaining to the medical examination of the prosecutrix does not disclose any evidence of sexual intercourse, yet even in the absence of any corroboration of medical evidence, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, which is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted."
20. This very authority was relied upon by Hon'ble High Court in Karan Singh (Supra). There also medical report revealed that there was no injury on the private part of the prosecutrix. By relying upon judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C.Deva (Supra) it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that the absence of injury on private part of the prosecutrix in the medical examination is of no consequence and it does not lead to an inference that the accused had not committed forcible intercourse upon the prosecutrix.
21. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, the mere fact that there was no sign of physical assault on the person of prosecutrix does not lead to an inference that accused had not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix. Rather perusal of testimony of prosecutrix goes to show that she has been subjected to lengthy cross examination by ld. defence counsel, however, nothing material could be elicited to discard her testimony.
22. Moreover, her testimony finds full support and corroboration from the testimony of PW1 Randhir Singh, her father. It is in the evidence of PW1 Randhir Singh that on 29.11.2009 at about 10.00 a.m. he received a call from her daughter who informed him about the commission of rape upon her SC No.15/10 Page 18 of 37 19 by the accused. Thereupon, he alongwith 34 other persons went to the house of his daughter where he met her. He made inquiries from him and his daughter stated all the facts to him. He informed the police at 100 number from his mobile phone whose number is 9811391598. It has come on record that ASI Gaje Singh was on emergency duty and he was handed over copy of DD No.24 A by the duty officer. A perusal of DD No.24 A goes to show that an information was received from mobile umber 9811391598 regarding commission of rape upon his daughter Neeru aged about 25 years by her fatherinlaw. On receipt of this DD, ASI Gaje Singh reached the spot where he met the prosecutrix, her father and then he recorded her statement Ex.PW4/A wherein the prosecutrix gave a detailed version as to how accused committed rape upon her.
23. It has further come on record that the prosecutrix was sent for her medical examination and was examined by Dr.Renuka Gupta. Before the doctor also, prosecutrix has given the history of commission of rape upon her by her fatherinlaw last night i.e. 28.11.2009 at 11.00 p.m. The factum of giving this history to the doctor becomes relevant as subsequent conduct. Such a conduct is relevant under section 157 read with section 8 of the Evidence Act. In Emperor vs. Phagunia Bhuran, AIR 1926 Pat. 58, it was observed as under : "If the girl went to her relatives straight after the occurrence and complained on her own initiative, there is no doubt that her conduct would have a direct bearing upon and connection with the occurrence itself". SC No.15/10 Page 19 of 37 20
In Umeshwar Kalyan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1952) 3 SCR 377 also, it was observed that where the raped girl instinctively ran home to her mother, but not finding her there, she went to sleep and when the mother returned four hours later, the girl told her what had happened, it was held that the statement made to the mother fell within the ambit of section 157 read with section 8 illustration (J) of the Evidence Act.
Nagam Gangadhar vs. State (1998 Cr.L.J 2220) considered the similar situation, where a child of four years was raped. Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "It is then contended that PW3 is a child witness and no importance can be attached to that evidence. It is true that the evidence of PW3 cannot be given the same weight as a grown up victim in a case of rape, the reason being that she is aged four years at the time of occurrence. However, she appears to have communicated to her parents that the revision petitioner has committed an act due to which she was getting pain in her private part. PW 1 as well as PW2 have sworn to the fact that PW3 disclosed the said act, even if the testimony of PW3 is to be ignored, the circumstances set out supra are, in view of Hon'ble Apex court, sufficient to bring home the guilt of the revisionpetitioner."
24. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble High court in 2010 II AD (SC) 117, Nannu Gupta @ Bablu vs. State and in 2010 Cr.L.J. 1281 Hari Om vs. State. It was held that previous statement of prosecutrix are admissible in evidence under section 157 of the Evidence Act and this proposition of law was recognized by Hon'ble Apex Court in Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, SC No.15/10 Page 20 of 37 21 1988 SC 386, where statement made by the prosecutrix to her mother soon after the incident was accepted to be corroborative piece of evidence. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, information of the incident given by prosecutrix to her parents immediately after the incident is corroborative piece of evidence against the accused.
25. Under the circumstances, the history recorded by Dr.Renuka Gupta immediately on the next day about the incident corroborates to the version of the prosecutrix.
26. Further more, it has come on record that the prosecutrix had produced her blouse, petticoat and saree which she was wearing at the time of incident before the doctor in the hospital who took the same into possession and she handed over the same to the police official. During the course of investigation, parcels were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and was examined by Poonam Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer (PW7) and she gave her report Ex.PW7/A. As per report, she detected human semen on Ex.1a i.e. Petticoat, although semen could not be detected on her blouse, saree and micro slides. Presence of semen on the petticoat of the prosecutrix is another corroborative piece of evidence. Moreover, it is to be kept in kind that prosecutrix is a married lady. It has come on record that her husband Amar Bahadur son of the accused was doing private job in a hospital at Faridabad and as per testimony of prosecutrix, she had sex with her husband 23 months prior to the date of incident. It is not in dispute that prosecutrix was present in the house where accused was also present. Keeping in view the fact that her husband was not available in the house and she was present in SC No.15/10 Page 21 of 37 22 the same house where the accused was also present, under these circumstances, presence of human semen on her petticoat is a very strong piece of evidence. No explanation is forthcoming from the side of accused as to with whom the prosecutrix had sex so that semen could have come on her petticoat. This is coupled with the fact that when the accused was medically examined by Dr. Sumit, on his medical examination, doctor found that there was nothing to suggest that accused was not capable to perform sexual intercourse. Although his blood sample and under garments were taken but semen sample could not be taken as accused was not cooperating. Although as per FSL report Ex.PW7/A, vaginal epithelial cells could not be detected on Ex. 1b which is underwear of the accused. However, accused does not get any benefit from the same in as much as the incident has taken place on the night of 28.11.2009 whereas accused was medically examined on 30.11.2009. There is no certainty that underwear which was taken into possession by the doctor was the same underwear which the accused was wearing on the date of incident or he had handed over some other underwear which was seized by the police. That being so, absence of any vaginal epithelial cells on his underwear is of no consequences. In B.C.Deva (Supra) also, FSL report pertaining to under garments of the accused revealed that it did not contain any seminal stains yet the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that said report can not be given any importance because the underwear of the accused was taken into possession by the police on the next day of the incident when he was arrested and therefore, there was no evidence on record to show that the accused handed over the same SC No.15/10 Page 22 of 37 23 underwear to the police which he was wearing on the date of incident or he had handed over some other underwear which was seized by the police. Present case is on much better footing in as much as, as stated above, on examination of petticoat of the prosecutrix human semen was detected. In view of aforesaid discussion, detection of human semen on the petticoat of the prosecutrix is a very important circumstance which corroborates the version of the prosecutrix.
27. Further more, as per the testimony of Dr.Sumit, who medially examined the accused, semen sample could not be collected as the person was not cooperating. When this incriminating piece of evidence was put to the accused while recording his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. he admitted that no semen sample was given however, he went on explaining that same could not be collected despite his best efforts of masturbation as he is 59 years old. This plea seems to be an after thought in as much it has seen the light of the day for the first time when his statement under section 313 Cr.PC was recorded and no such suggestion was given to Dr.Sumit when he was examined. In fact the testimony of the doctor goes unrebutted and unchallenged in as much as he has not been cross examined at all by the accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of Dr.Sumit who is an independent witness and has no illwill or grudge against the accused to depose against him. This refusal on the part of the accused to give his semen sample is another strong piece of evidence against him. 2010 I AD (Delhi) 130 Mohinder Singh Bhatti vs. State (NCT of Delhi) was also a case where the accused had failed to give his semen SC No.15/10 Page 23 of 37 24 sample and it was held by Hon'ble High Court that his refusal to give semen sample certainly nails him.
28. As regards the discrepancies referred by ld. Defence counsel in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it may be mentioned that it is now well settled by catena of decisions that inconsistencies, discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of witness, but unless the discrepancies are of such a nature which goes to the root of the prosecution case, same cannot be thrown on ground.
29. The Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh (AIR 1988 S.C. 1998) concluded that with regard to the falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. The Apex Court sought reliance from Bankim Chander (AIR 1919 PC 157) wherein the Privy Council had ruled that in Indian litigation, it is not safe to assume that a case must be false if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly untrue, since there is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence. It was announced by the Apex court that it is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution evidence, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is SC No.15/10 Page 24 of 37 25 reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses.
30. The Apex court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh (1996 (2) SCC
384) has held that no selfrespecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation supposed considerations, which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness and tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Court should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such case is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.
31. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, the discrepancies pointed out by ld. defence counsel are not of such a nature which make the prosecution version unreliable. On the other hand, it is to be kept in mind that the accused is none else but is the fatherinlaw of the prosecutrix. That being so, prosecutrix must be conscious of the fact that by levelling such allegations, she is not only putting her own honour at stake but also her matrimonial life and therefore unless there is an element of truth in the SC No.15/10 Page 25 of 37 26 complaint, she would not have levelled these allegations against him. As regards the plea taken by the accused that the prosecutrix wanted to grab the property belonging to his wife and with that intention she has falsely implicated him in this case, this pleas is devoid of merits. Had the prosecutrix to implicate the accused in a false case, she could have done so merely by making a complaint under section 498A/406 IPC which has now been filed against the accused and other family members and for the purpose of grabbing the property belonging to the wife of the accused, there was no need for her to make an accusation of rape involving her own honour at stake. In this regard, observations made by Hon'ble High Court in Hari Om vs. State 2010 Crl.L.J. 1281 may be reproduced.
"Prosecutrix being a young girl aged about 7 years at the time of incident, it is not likely that her parents would have implicated the accused in a false case of rape of their daughter, conscious as they would be that reporting of such a matter to police, particularly, when parents of prosecutrix as well as the accused were living in the jhuggies situated in the same locality, was bound to expose their daughter to scrutiny and questions not only by the police and the Court, but also by their neighbour and relatives. They could not have been ignorant of the fact that they may even have difficulty in finding a suitable match for their daughter once it is known that she has been subjected to rape in her childhood. Therefore, if they, despite realising these consequences do report the matter to police, it would be only if what they were reporting was absolutely true and correct. In fact, some of the parents even refrain from reporting such incident lest SC No.15/10 Page 26 of 37 27 their child not face embarrassment on account of incident becoming public and her marriage being jeopardised on account of prospective inlaws becoming aware of the incident, at the time of her marriage. The parents of prosecutrix knew that if they report the matter to the police, they will have to take their child first to police station, then to the hospital and ultimately in the Court, and the child will be made to repeat the worst incident of her life at every place at considerable discomfort and embarrassment to her. Therefore, unless the incident of this nature actually happened with their child, no parents would take such step".
Similar view was taken in Nannu Gupta (supra). That was also a case where the case was registered against the accused under section 452/506/376/511 IPC and same defence was taken that the accused was falsely implicated in the case for the purpose of getting the room vacated from the tenant. It was held by Hon'ble High Court that had the prosecutrix/her husband to implicate the accused in a false case, they could have done so merely by making allegations of trespass, threat and causing injury with knife and there was no need for them to make false accusation of attempted rape when their purpose could have duly been served by levelling other allegations against the appellant. .
Even in Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 12 SCC 57, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is unlikely that child of eight or nine years of age can even be tutored to make allegations of rape by a person otherwise well known to her and then repeat those allegations before police, magistrate, doctor and then during trial.
SC No.15/10 Page 27 of 37 28
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoqinbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujrat 1983 (2) Recent Criminal Report 192 had noticed peculiar conditions and circumstances in which a girl or woman, who happens to be victim of rape, in Indian conditions would find herself and so will be reluctant to disclose such incident to anyone and it is observed as under : "Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault... The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because : (1) A girl or a woman in the tradition bound nonpermissible Society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the Society or being looked down upon by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel SC No.15/10 Page 28 of 37 29 extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame and account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman would also more often than not want to avoid publicity on account of fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the Court, to face the crossexamination by counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, act as deterrent".
When in the face of these factors, the crime is brought to light, there is a built in assurance that charge is genuine rather than fabricated.
32. In the instant case, the allegations are genuine keeping in view the fact that the prosecutrix must be conscious of the fact that by raising such allegations against her father inlaw she is putting her matrimonial life at stake in as much as she was very much aware of the fact that after such allegations are levelled against her fatherinlaw, it will not be possible for her to live in her matrimonial house as even her husband may not keep her. DW4 Amar Bahadur, her husband has deposed that he is not ready and willing to keep his wife with him any more. Under the circumstances, unless the charge has been genuine, prosecutrix would not have involved her own SC No.15/10 Page 29 of 37 30 honour at stake and had not put her matrimonial life at stake which after registration of the case has come to an end. Under the circumstances, there is built in assurance that charge levelled by the prosecutrix is genuine and is not fabricated.
33. As regards the defence taken by the accused, it is alleged by him that after marriage, prosecutrix started residing with his son Amar Bahadur at Faridabad and she was not willing to do household work and wanted to stay away as his son was always busy in duty hours, she developed illicit relationship with her uncle Rajiv Singh to which he objected as such she left for her parental home. He also tried to rectify her mistake but she did not mend her ways and for the last one year she was living with her father at her parental home and she had come to stay in her matrimonial home 1 ½ month prior. She came on Karva Chauth and thereafter she was residing in her matrimonial home and after the incident, she is residing with her father. She has also falsely implicated him and his other family members in case FIR No.207/2010 PS Nangloi under section 498A/406 IPC. In order to substantiate his plea, he has examined DW1 Chander Kant, who brought the record pertaining to bail application moved by Amar Bahadur and Munni Devi under section 406/498A/34 IPC. DW2 Head Constable Pardeep Kumar brought the FIR No.207/2010 under section 498A/406/34 IPC PS Nangloi. DW3 Kishan Pal has deposed about the character of the accused by deposing that he bears good moral character. DW4 Amar Bahadur is son of the accused and husband of the prosecutrix. He has testified that he got married with the prosecutrix on 30.4.2006. At that time, he was working at SC No.15/10 Page 30 of 37 31 Noida. When he had gone for his duty, prosecutrix lit fire to herself however, no complaint was made but parents of the prosecutrix were informed who told him that since he was living at Noida and she wanted to live with her husband therefore, he should take her alongwith him. Thereafter he took her with him and then shifted to Faridabad. The proscutrix used to remain away from the house and her parents were informed about this. However, he was threatened to be implicated in false and fabricated case by Mr.Vikram, uncle of prosecutrix. When he took her to her parents house and at that time, he also stayed there. He noticed that prosecutrix was lying with her uncle Pappu on the bed in his hands. Next day, it was brought to the knowledge of her parents but he was threatened with dire consequences. He brought this fact to the knowledge of his parents who assured him to talk to the father of the prosecutrix on this subject. Thereafter she was brought to Faridabad by her uncle Pappu and in his absence her uncle used to visit the house and this fact was told to him by the house owner. Thereafter he left her at her parental house and from there her uncle took her to Sonia Vihar. Prosecutrix never used to do house hold work and used to remain outside. When he was at Faridabad, he came to know that the case is being registered against his father and thereafter he informed his father who came to PS Sonia Vihar from where he was arrested by the police. According to him, his wife in connivance with his father has lodged a false and frivolous complaint for demand of dowry before CAW Cell . One Mr.Vikram and Sharma telephoned him and demanded Rs. Five lac for withdrawal of this case. The prosecutrix never informed him about the SC No.15/10 Page 31 of 37 32 alleged rape upon her by his father. According to him, his father is a noble person and is a confectioner (halwai) by profession. He had seen his wife in a compromising position and tried to mend her ways. His mother is owner of the house in which his father is residing. His father has been implicated falsely by the prosecutrix in connivance with her father. He is not ready and willing to keep her as she is having bad character nor is she willing to do household work.
34. Perusal of testimony of this witness goes to show that he had tried to assassinate the character of the prosecutrix by alleging that she was having illicit relations with her uncle. Such a plea was also taken by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. When such suggestions were given to the prosecutrix and her father they had totally denied these suggestions. This defence taken by the accused and DW4 seems to be vague in as much as different pleas have been taken regarding the person with whom she is alleged to have illicit relations. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has alleged illicit relationship of prosecutrix with her uncle "Rajiv Singh". However, Amar Bahadur in his testimony has deposed that he had seen her lying with his uncle "Pappu" in his hands. It is not case of the accused that "Rajiv" and "Pappu" are one and the same person. Moreover, in cross examination, Amar Bahadur could not tell the date when he had seen his wife and chacha in compromising position. No such suggestion was given to prosecutrix. He admitted that he did not make any complaint against her uncle nor filed any divorce petition nor got any case registered against chacha and his wife under section 497 IPC. He further admitted that SC No.15/10 Page 32 of 37 33 even after seeing the prosecutrix in compromising position with her chacha he allowed her to live with him and his family members. It is very easy to level allegations against the character of anybody but very difficult to prove the same. Here is also a case where the husband in order to save his father is trying to assassinate the character of his own wife. His own conduct reflects that the allegations have no ring of truth in as much as according to him he has seen his wife in compromising position with her uncle and this was continuous affair. Had it been so, he would not have permitted her to live with him or his other family members but that was never done. Similarly, his plea that Mr.Vikram and Sharma demanded Rs.Four lac to Five lac to withdraw the case, is also devoid of merits in as much as this plea has come for the first time in the statement of DW4 and no such suggestion has been given to any witness nor accused in his statement has taken any such plea. It was admitted by DW4 that he did not make any complaint regarding any demand made by Vikram and Sharma. Admittedly, he was not present in the house on the date of incident. The material witnesses were his brothers and grand father, who were present in the house, but they have not been examined by the accused to prove his innocence.
20. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the defence taken by the accused has no legs to stand. On the other hand, prosecutrix is a truthful, reliable and trustworthy witness and her evidence cannot be brushed aside on the above noted flimsy plea raised by the accused. In view of the settled legal proposition, enunciated above, the testimony of the prosecutrix herself is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, in the instant SC No.15/10 Page 33 of 37 34 case, there is ample other evidence on record which corroborates her testimony viz
(i) On the date of incident, prosecutrix was not having any telephone as such on the next day, when her fatherinlaw (accused) left for work, she informed her parents. PW`1 Randhir Singh, her father came to house and he immediately informed the police about the incident from his mobile and the same finds corroboration from DD No.24A which was recorded on the basis of information given by Randhir Singh.
(ii) When the prosecutrix was taken for her medical examination even at that time she gave the history to the doctor regarding commission of rape upon her by her fatherinlaw.
(iii) She gave her clothes to the doctor which were sent to FSL and on her petticoat, human semen was detected.
(iv) Accused failed to give semen sample when he was medically examined.
21. Under the circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, accused has failed to give an iota of evidence on record which may place doubt on the prosecution version and which may show that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Under the circumstances, accused is held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 376 and 506 IPC.
Announced in the open Court (Sunita Gupta)
on this 26th day of July, 2010 District JudgeVII/NEcumASJ,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
SC No.15/10 Page 34 of 37
35
IN THE COURT OF MS SUNITA GUPTA : DISTRICT JUDGE-VII-CUM- ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTH-EAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C. No. 15/10
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0024452010 State Vs. Ramender Singh S/o Shri Laturi Singh, R/o E-2-213, 4th Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No. 24/09 PS Sonia Vihar U/s 376/506 IPC.
Date of Institution :- 24.02.2010 Date of reserving the Judgement :- 26.07.2010 Date of pronouncement :- 29.07.2010 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE :-
1. Leniency in punishment has been claimed by Dharmender Kumar, ld.
Counsel for the convict, pleading that convict is an old man, aged about 59 years. Although the convict has three sons, out of whom two elders sons are residing separately. His younger son is aged about 11 years. He is the sole bread earner of the family and due to his incarceration, his whole family would starve. The prosecutrix has also filed another complaint before CAW Cell against all the family members of convict and it is difficult for his family to meet their both ends. Moreover, convict remained in custody since the date of his arrest, as such it is submitted by ld. Counsel that he be dealt with leniency while awarding sentence.
2. On the other hand, ld. Prosecutor submits that offence committed by the convict is very serious in nature, inasmuch as, prosecutrix Neeru (name changed) used to treat convict, who is her father-in-law, as father, but betraying her trust, convict committed a very heinous offence of rape with her. Convict does not deserve any leniency and should be awarded maxima punishment provided u/s 376 IPC.
SC No.15/10 Page 35 of 37 36
3. On 28.11.09 at about 11pm, Neeru was sleeping in her room. Convict, who is her father-in-law, called her inside his room. She went outside her room and stood outside the room of convict. She asked him as to what was the matter. Suddenly, convict caught hold of her hand, dragged her inside his room and switched off all the lights. He forcibly made her to lay on his bed and forcefully committed rape upon her against her consent. When she tried to raise alarm, convict put his hand on her mouth and did not allow her to do so. Convict also threatened her to kill, if she happened to narrate such untoward incident to anybody.
4. There is substantial force that convict is father-in-law of prosecutrix and in Indian society, after marriage of a girl, her father-in-law takes the place of her father. As such prosecutrix reposed confidence in convict. However, betraying that confidence, convict indulged in such a heinous crime. Moreover, an act of rape, that too upon his own daughter-in-law, is a gruesome and abhorring act. It leaves a permanent scar on the personality of the victim. It instils a feeling of fear, insecurity and a brooding sense of shame and guilt for no fault of the victim. A rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault- it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. In the present case, repercussion of lodging the report against the convict has led to total break down of matrimonial life of the victim. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, convict does not does not deserve any leniency. Further more, section 376 IPC prescribes minimum sentence as 7 years, which can be extended to life or for a term which may extend to 10 years and also fine. However, keeping in view facts and circumstances detailed above and balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors surrounding the convict, he is hereby sentenced to SC No.15/10 Page 36 of 37 37 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under section 376 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI for six months. He is further sentenced to undergo RI for two years for offence punishable under section 506 IPC and is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as fine. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo three months RI.
5. Substantive sentences awarded to convict shall run concurrently. Fine, if recovered, be paid to prosecutrix as token of compensation. Convict shall also get benefit of period already undergone in detention during investigation and trial of the case. A copy of judgement and order on sentence be supplied to him free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court (Sunita Gupta) On this 29th day of July, 2010. District Judge-VII/NE-cum-ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
SC No.15/10 Page 37 of 37