Delhi District Court
State vs Jitender S/O Late Sh. Ajay Pal, on 6 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA-I
JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (POCSO Act)/ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (NORTH-
EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SC No.16/2016
FIR No.1207/2015
PS Bhajanpura
Under Section 377/506(I) IPC & 6 POCSO Act
State Versus Jitender S/o late Sh. Ajay Pal,
R/o H.No.C-8, Gali No.1, Bhajanpura, Delhi
Date of institution of case : 02.02.2016
Date on which judgment reserved : 28.04.2017
Date of judgment pronounced : 05.05.2017
JUDGMENT:
1. On 16.11.2015, the victim, a minor boy - aged about 12 years and student of class VII made a statement to the police that Jitender (accused) had been on visiting terms at his house for the last about 15-20 years and he used to address him as uncle. About three months ago, at about 6.00pm, Jitender came to his house under intoxication. At that time, his mother Smt. Jaishree had gone to the market to make purchases and he was alone at his house. The victim alleged that Jitender closed the door of his room and showed him obscene pictures on his mobile phone, put off his clothes and after making him naked, he made him lie on the bed and committed sodomy with him and when he felt pain and cried, the accused pressed his mouth. The victim further stated that the accused had committed such acts with him several times but out of fear, he could not tell about it to his mother.
2. On the basis of above complaint, present case was registered for the offences punishable under Section 377 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The medical examination of the victim and that of the accused was conducted. The accused was arrested. Statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC was recorded. After SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 1 of 16 completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Jitender before this Court for the offences punishable under Section 377/506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. On hearing Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and considering the material on record, charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 377 IPC; alternatively under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(I) IPC, dated 01.03.2016, to which accused pleaded not guilty claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses at the trial:
PW-1 Sh. R.K. Gautm, Public Health Inspector, MCD Office, Shahdara, North Zone, Delhi proved the copy of the birth certificate of the victim as Ex.PW1/A. PW-2 HC Anil Kumar was the Duty Officer, who proved the copy of DD No.95-B, regarding receipt of information about the incident as Ex.PW2/A. He also proved his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW2/B, the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW2/C and the certificate issued by him regarding registration of the FIR, under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW2/D. PW-3 was the victim himself. He deposed about the incident amongst other facts.
PW-4 Sh. Sumit was the elder brother of the victim. He deposed about the facts as told to him by his mother Smt. Jaishree. He had also confronted the accused about his acts and when a quarrel ensued between them, he made the call at number 100. He was also a witness to the arrest of the accused.
PW-5 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar remained associated in the investigation with the IO.
PW-6 Dr. Abhishek proved the MLC of the accused and his medical sheets vide Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively, which were prepared by him.
PW-7 Dr. Madhu Sudhan proved the MLC of the victim and his medical sheets vide SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 2 of 16 Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B respectively, which were prepared by him.
PW-8 Dr. Shwetabh proved his detailed medical examination report in respect of the victim and proved it as Ex.PW8/A. PW-9 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. MM, Traffic, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts proved the factum of recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC, vide Ex.PW9/A. PW-10 Smt. Jaishree was the mother of the victim. She deposed about the facts as told to her by the victim amongst other facts.
PW-11 Ct. Jai Prakash had reached the spot alongwith IO SI Raj Pal on receipt of DD No.95-B. He had also taken the victim to GTB hospital, accompanied by his mother.
PW-12 SI Raj Pal Singh was the initial IO of this case. He had reached the spot on receipt of DD No.95-B alongwith PW-11. He had also recorded the statement of the victim and thereafter got the FIR registered. Thereafter, the further investigation of this case was assigned to W-SI Vandna.
PW-13 W-SI Vandna was the second and final IO of the case. She interrogated the victim and prepared the site plan of the place of incident at his instance. She had also arrested the accused, produced the victim before the Ld. MM for recording of his statement under Section 164 CrPC, received and seized the exhibits of this case, collected the birth certificate of the victim and after completion of investigation, she submitted the chargesheet before the Court.
5. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC and the entire incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied and pleaded innocence. He took the defence that he was the friend of the owner/landlord of the house where Smt. Jaishree (PW-10) was residing on rent with her sons i.e. the victim (PW-3) and Sumit (PW-4). He stated that they did not want to vacate the said house and they had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from him. He further stated that PW-10 was friend of SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 3 of 16 his sister. He had asked PW-10 to vacate the house on the request of its landlord but she got annoyed and made false allegations against him and when he demanded his money back, he was beaten up by the victim's family and in order to save themselves from liability, they falsely implicated him in this case and made false depositions against him.
6. The accused examined four witnesses in his defence. DW-1 Sh. Girish, Ahlmad from the Court of Sh. Deepak Dabas, Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts and DW-2 Sh. Mahesh Chandra Pant, Civil Nazir from the Court of Sh. Deepak Dabas, Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts produced the certified copies/documents of a civil suit case filed by one Sh. Chander Prakash Sharma against Smt. Jaishree (PW-10) bearing CIS No.5184/2015.
7. DW-3 Smt. Poonam Sharma was the sister of the accused. She deposed about their relationship with Smt. Jaishree (PW-10). She also deposed about giving Rs.30,000/- to her by the accused and non return of the said amount, amongst other facts. DW-4 Ved Prakash Sharma was the brother of said Sh. Chander Prakash Sharma. He deposed that his brother was a patient of asthma and was not able to appear before the courts and therefore he used to appear on his behalf in courts whenever required and that Smt. Jaishree was residing at the house of his brother on rent and was not paying rent regularly and a civil suit was filed against her by his brother, which was pursued by him (DW-4).
8. I have heard Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Lalit Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the accused and gone through the records.
9. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the victim, a 12 years old boy, made categoric allegations of sodomy by the accused and had been consistent regarding the allegations throughout the proceedings. He submitted that there was no reason to disbelieve him and that his allegations were duly supported by the medical findings on record. He pointed out that the mother and brother of the victim who were also examined in this case, have also consistently supported the version of the victim and SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 4 of 16 hence, prayed for the conviction of the accused.
10. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the entire case has been concocted and the accused has been falsely implicated in this case since he was a friend of the landlord of the house where the victim and his family were residing and were not vacating it and also since the accused being the friend of the said landlord was also asking the mother of the victim to vacate the said premises. He further submitted that the victim's mother had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/ from the accused and when he asked for repayment, he was falsely implicated. Apart from that, it was argued that there was a delay of about three months in lodging of the FIR and the medical evidence has not supported the version of the victim. He further submitted that though the victim was found to be suffering from Sexual Transmitted Disease (herein after referred to as STD) but the accused was not having any such disease and this fact was never proved on record. Lastly, it was submitted that no mobile phone was recovered from the accused on which he had allegedly shown obscene films to the victim before committing the alleged crime.
11. The sterling witness of this case was the victim himself. In his complaint on which the present case was registered, he made categoric allegations against the accused and as mentioned herein above. He was then taken to the hospital where he gave the alleged history to the doctor of sexual assault three months ago. His statement U/S 164 Cr.PC was recorded by the Ld. MM which is Ex.PW3/B wherein he again made allegations that the accused came to his house while he was alone and showed him obscene video. He alleged that thereafter, the accused tried to put off his clothes but he prevented him from doing so, but the accused did not mend his ways and then he started having sex with him. He further stated that when he started crying and stated that he would tell about it to his mother, the accused threatened to kill his brother and mother. He further alleged that the accused repeated these acts 23 times and further that after 23 months, on the day of Diwali, he felt warts on his rectum and he disclosed about it to his mother and she took him to the doctor, who advised for SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 5 of 16 his blood test for HIV. His mother then apprised about it to his brother who called his friends and also summoned the accused, slapped him and called the PCR.
12. The victim was examined in the Court as PW3 and he again gave a detailed account of the ordeal. He deposed that he was residing with his mother and elder brother and was studying in Class 7 at the time of incident. However, he could not remember the date or month. He deposed that on a fateful day, in the evening, he was alone in the house as his mother had gone to the market and brother had gone for his job. At that time, the accused who is the brother of his mother's friend and known for the last 45 years and had been visiting their house, came there, closed the door of the house and showed obscene video on his mobile phone. He further deposed that thereafter the accused took off his clothes forcibly and then committed carnal intercourse with him (peechhe se kiya). He deposed that the accused repeated the acts on different dates and when he had committed the act for the first time, he had cried with pain but the accused threatened to kill his brother and mother and out of fear, he did not tell the acts of accused to them. He further deposed that near about Diwali in the year 2015, he developed warts at his anal portion and he complained about it to her mother who took him to the hospital where the doctor advised blood test which was found to be normal. However, the doctor opined that he had undergone carnal intercourse. He deposed that he disclosed the acts of the accused to his brother who informed about it to his mother and thereafter the accused was summoned at their house by his brother and the police was called.
13. The victim was crossexamined at length but nothing could be extracted to disbelieve his version. His testimony could not be shattered nor any doubt could be created in his version during his entire crossexamination. He deposed in the cross examination that the accused had been visiting his house for the last 15/20 years but stopped visiting when they shifted their previous house and had again started visiting since last 45 years. He also deposed that the accused bolted the door immediately after entering, sat for sometime and then started showing him video on SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 6 of 16 his mobile phone. He also deposed that the accused asked him as to where his mother had gone and when she would return and he told him that he would return after about 1/1½ hours which was the usual time taken by her to return from the market.
14. In further crossexamination, the victim deposed that the accused was drunk as stated by him in Ex.PW3/A as he appeared to be drunk at that time. He also deposed that there was no bleeding when the accused had committed wrong act with him for the first time and that he had opened the door when his mother returned and at that time he had worn the clothes on the directions of the accused. He further deposed that the accused repeated the said acts in his house in similar manner. He even gave details of the mobile phone of the accused on which he had shown the obscene video, to be of Micromax company.
15. It is, thus, observed that the victim had given a detailed account of the acts of the accused and had been consistent throughout the proceedings regarding his allegations against the accused of his having committed sodomy with him more than once. His detailed crossexamination yielded no result in favour of the accused and he rather withstood the test of crossexamination.
16. The other two corroborative witnesses were PW4 - his brother and PW10 - his mother. Though they were merely hearsay witnesses but despite that they thoroughly corroborated the testimony of PW4 and the allegations made by him and as told to them. They both deposed that when the warts were detected on the anus portion of the victim, he was taken to the doctor by PW10 and he suggested for the HIV test of the victim and then she apprised about the disease to his elder son/PW4. Thereafter, the victim confided in PW4 and disclosed the acts of the accused. Both the witnesses deposed in similar manner and gave the same account of the acts of the accused as deposed by PW3/victim and noted herein above. It is worthwhile to mention here that crossexamination of these two witnesses also failed to make out any case in SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 7 of 16 favour of the accused or in other words their testimony could not be impeached during their crossexamination.
17. Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed out that in crossexamination, PW4 deposed that on 16.11.2015, he was told by his mother about the incident on phone at about 2.00 pm after returning from the hospital. He deposed that he had gone to his house at 2.00 pm during lunch and after confirming the incident from the victim, again went to his job. Thereafter, when he returned in the evening from the job, he called the accused despite his mother not agreeing for it. Ld. Counsel submitted that the conduct of PW4 was quite unnatural. According to him, when PW4 came to know about the acts of the accused at 2.00 pm itself, it was not natural for him to have returned to his job and wait till evening before reporting the matter to the police. I do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of PW4. There was no urgency as the act had already been committed about three months ago and further a person has to think twice about the consequences of the action before reporting the matter to the police, while also considering the welfare of the victim.
18. PW10 also deposed the above facts as told to him by the victim and in her cross examination her testimony stood corroborated with that of PW4 regarding the time when the facts were told to PW4. She deposed that the victim informed her about the incident at about 11/11.30 am after his medical examination and then they returned to their house and she told the above facts to his son/PW10 at about 2/2.30 pm, i.e. the same time as disclosed by PW4. She also deposed that the victim never told about the incident to her before his warts were noticed by the doctor which shows that there was no intention, as alleged by Ld. Counsel for the accused, to falsely implicate him.
19. It was argued by Ld. Counsel that the reports of previous doctor to whom the victim was taken for the first time and who had made observations regarding the warts, were never given by PW10 to the IO nor placed on the judicial record and further SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 8 of 16 that the said doctor was also never examined. In my opinion, this argument is also of no use as the victim was examined afresh in a government hospital through the police on 16.11.2015 itself when the victim is alleged to have been examined for the first time upon his complaint of warty lesions in his anal area by the doctor at Hedgewar Hospital. The opinion of the said doctor, as deposed by PW10, cannot be doubted simply because of a lapse on the part of the IO in not examining the said doctor or collecting the said report and it would not falsify the subsequent opinion/reports of the Govt. doctor who examined the victim on the same day when he was firstly examined.
20. The other leg of the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel was that there was no medical evidence on record to support the version of the victim and that the accused was not found to be having any venereal disease during his medical examination which was got conducted by the IO.
21. I again disagree with this contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel as the doctor examined on record had proved otherwise. Pw7 Dr. Madhusudan had firstly examined the victim on the request of the IO. He deposed that on local examination, he found warty lesions present over the perianal area of the victim, having whitish colour. He also deposed that the patient was uncooperative for collection of perianal swab samples as it was painful and as such, he was referred to the Surgery Department.
22. In his crossexamination, PW7 deposed that the warts present over the perianal area of the victim must have been caused because of the sexual intercourse. Thus, it was a definite opinion by him that such warts were a result of sexual intercourse. He further admitted that STD can be caused by a person who himself is suffering from any venereal disease and explained that this disease is caused if a person committing the acts is suffering from herpes or human papilloma virus.
23. Thereafter, PW8 who had examined the victim in the Surgery Department, also SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 9 of 16 confirmed the presence of perianal warty lesions on the perianal region of the victim. He deposed that the patient was not cooperative for doing a digital rectal examination and proctoscope. In his crossexamination, PW8 deposed that perianal warts are mostly a part of STD but if a patient is having poor personal hygiene and associated with low immunity like HIV infection, he can develop warty lesions.
24. In the instant case, the HIV test of the victim was found to be negative and on a Court question, PW8 deposed that the personal hygiene of the victim was good and there was nothing to suspect that he was having HIV infection. In further cross examination he deposed that it is possible if earlier he was not keeping good personal hygiene, he could have developed the lesions. There is nothing on record to show that the patient was not keeping good personal hygiene earlier nor any such suggestion was given to him or his mother.
25. It was also deposed by PW8 in his crossexamination that it was not necessary that the person transmitting the disease through sexual intercourse should have surfaced lesion virus and it was possible that he may transmit the virus to the victim through intercourse and that such a person must be having virus which would surface after some time and can be detected if proper examination is done with that angle.
26. This answers the arguments raised by Ld. Counsel that the accused was never detected any STD during his medical examination. As per record, the accused was examined by PW6 and he made a general examination of the accused. He was not given the alleged history of the accused as is apparent from the MLC, and therefore, his examination was conducted only to ascertain whether he was capable of performing sexual intercourse or not but his detailed examination was not conducted to analyze or adjudge whether he was suffering from any venereal disease/STD. In view of the unchallenged testimony of PW3, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it was the accused who transmitted STD to the victim through sexual intercourse.
SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 10 of 16
27. According to the Ld. Defence Counsel, the mobile phone was never recovered from the accused on which he allegedly showed obscene video to the victim. The incident took place about three months ago and hence, there was no possibility of recovering the said phone. Further, no accused would retain such videos for so long.
28. The delay, if any, in lodging the FIR also stands well explained in the testimony of the victim himself as also in the testimony of PW4 and PW10. The victim deposed that he was threatened by the accused not to disclose his acts to anyone or else he would kill his brother and mother. The victim was a child of 12 years and was not having the protective cover of his father and as such, his fear could not be considered to be without any basis. It was only when the STD surfaced on his body and the doctor to whom he was firstly taken, opined that he had undergone carnal intercourse, then he was compelled to disclose the incident. The matter was reported to the police on the same day when he disclosed about the acts of the accused to his mother and brother. Therefore, in my opinion, there was no delay in lodging of the FIR.
29. The question arises as to why the victim would make such allegations against the accused when he was well known to him for the last 1015 years and was the brother of the friend of his mother. In my opinion, a child would not make allegations of such nature until and unless the acts were actually committed with him. The medical evidence on record clearly shows that he was infected with STD and this disease is possible because of sexual intercourse apart from other reasons. No other reason has surfaced on record and as already observed above, the testimony of the victim could not be impeached regarding the acts of the sodomy committed by the accused with him.
30. Ld. Defence Counsel raised a twofold defence, firstly that the accused was the friend of the landlord whose house was not being vacated by the victim's family and they were also not paying rent to him and who had filed a civil suit for eviction SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 11 of 16 against the mother of the victim and further that the accused had also asked the family of the victim to vacate the house. In my opinion, if there was any enmity in this respect, it would have been between victim's family and that of the landlord and if anyone had to be falsely implicated, it would have been from the family of the landlord. The reasoning that the accused has been implicated because he was a friend of the landlord does not appeal to senses, when he was also the brother of the friend of the victim's mother. This defence does not find favour with this Court.
31. The second defence was that the victim's mother had borrowed Rs.30,000/ from the accused and to avoid repayment, she got him falsely implicated in this case. In my opinion, no parent of a young child would like to put him or her to shame with such shameful allegations to ruin his future for a petty amount of money. Apart from that, this defence was taken by the accused only at the time of examination of PW10 and not even a suggestion of any money having been borrowed by the victim's mother was given to the victim or even to PW4.
32. Ld. Counsel examined four witnesses in his defence, the first two being the Court staff to prove the litigation between the mother of the victim and her landlord for eviction of the rented house. The accused also examined the brother of the landlord as DW4 who also deposed about the fact of such litigation. These witnesses only proved the record which is not disputed. In my opinion, when the landlord had already taken a legal action and the victim's family was contesting it, there was no reason for false implication of the accused because of the said reason or dispute.
33. The accused then examined his sister as DW3 who deposed that the victim's mother used to visit their house and used to demand money from her mother; that she demanded Rs.50,000/ from her elder brother Babli but she was not paid and thereafter she demanded Rs.30,000/ from the accused about 23 months before Diwali and promised to return after 23 months but failed to return it. She also deposed that after three months, she alongwith her mother and the accused went to SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 12 of 16 the house of the victim to ask for the return of the money from PW10 but she did not return it and instead quarelled with them and threatened to falsely implicate in a case. In her crossexamination, she deposed that the accused used to earn Rs.10,000 15,000/ per month by making tattoos on the human body and that he was married and having a daughter. It is hard to believe that a person earning such a little amount of money and having a family to support, could spare an amount of Rs.30,000/ to lend it to someone. No date or month was mentioned by DW3 when the alleged amount of Rs.30,000/ was lent to PW10 or the date when it was demanded back. She admitted that the accused never made any complaint to the police or filed any suit for recovery for the nonreturn of the said amount.
34. DW3 was a highly interested witness being the real sister of the accused and also not believable. No suggestion was given to PW10 regarding her presence or her mother's presence with the accused when she allegedly demanded the amount from PW10. In my opinion, the defence raised by the accused is illusory and an afterthought and cannot be accepted.
35. Thus, from the appreciation of the evidence, it is clear that the testimonies of the sterling witnesses, i.e. the victim/PW3 PW4 and PW10, could not be impeached and they all categorically pointed out the finger upon the accused that he committed the act of sodomy with the victim. The medical evidence has also supported and corroborated the version of the victim and there is no apparent reason except the acts of the accused, that the victim developed STD. Similarly, there had been absolutely no crossexamination regarding the threats extended by the accused to the victim and as deposed by him and that part of the allegations remained unrebutted and unchallenged.
36. Hence, in the totality of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused committed sodomy with the victim more than once and also threatened to kill his brother and his mother. Accordingly, accused Jitender is hereby SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 13 of 16 held guilty.
37. The accused had been charged for the offences punishable under Section 377 IPC and alternatively under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, apart from Section 506(I) IPC.
38. According to Section 42 of the POCSO Act, wherein an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under this Act and also under any other law for the time being in force then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the offender found guilty of such offence shall be liable to punishment only under such law or this Act as provides for punishment which is greater in degree.
39. Section 377 IPC provides for punishment which may extend to 10 years and also provides for fine. Section 6 of the POCSO Act provides for punishment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also provides for fine.
40. It is clear from the above provisions that punishment provided under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is greater in degree than provided in Section 377 IPC. Thus, as per the mandate of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, accused Jitender is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act and is convicted for the said offence. He is also held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(I) IPC.
Put up for arguments/order on the quantum of sentence as per the schedule given in the ordersheet.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 5th day of May 2017 (Sanjay Sharma-I) Judge Special Court (POCSO Act), Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 14 of 16 IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA-I JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (POCSO Act)/ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 (NORTH-EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI SC No.16/2016 FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura Under Section 377/506(I) IPC & 6 POCSO Act State Versus Jitender S/o late Sh. Ajay Pal, R/o H.No.C-8, Gali No.1, Bhajanpura, Delhi Order on sentence :
1. Vide Judgment dated 05.05.2017, convict Jitender was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 506(I) IPC.
2. I have heard Sh. Sukhbeer Singh - Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Lalit Yadav - Ld. Counsel for the convict.
3. It was submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that maximum punishment should be awarded to the convict since he has been found guilty of committing sodomy upon the victim, a minor boy, who was aged about 14 years of age at the time of the incident as well as of threatening him. He submitted that in case severe punishment is not inflicted upon the convict, a wrong message would go to the society that such criminals can escape with simple imprisonment.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict submitted that the convict is aged about 35 years and is the only bread earner of his family which consists only of his wife, aged widowed mother and a six year old female child as also her divorced sister. It is also submitted that there would be no one to look after them. He further submitted that the convict is a first time offender with no criminal antecedents and as such, it was prayed that a lenient view may be taken.
5. I have considered the mitigating and the aggravating circumstances as presented before me. The convict has been held guilty for committing sodomy with a child who was having a relation of trust in him, which is an inhuman act by all means. The said acts of the accused would leave the victim scarred for the entire life.
SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 15 of 16
6. Accordingly, convict Jitender is hereby sentenced as under:
• Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act. In case of non-payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. • Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506(I) IPC. In case of non-payment of fine, he shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
7. Convict remained in judicial custody from 17.11.2015 to 05.02.2016 and thereafter from 05.05.2017 to till today. Benefit of Section 428 CrPC is also extended to the convict. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
8. The victim is also entitled to compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC. The convict had been asked if he can pay any compensation but he submitted that since he was the only earning member of the family and his livelihood has come to an end therefore, he is unable to pay any compensation. It is also submitted that he could not pay the fee of his counsel. This court is satisfied regarding the financial status of the convict as submitted by him. In view thereof, it is directed that a sum of Rs.3 lac be paid as compensation to the victim under the Victim Compensation Act through DLSA, after setting aside the amount of interim compensation paid to him and a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Secretary, DLSA, North-East District for compliance.
A copy of the judgment and this order be also given to the convict free of cost.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 6th day of May 2017 (Sanjay Sharma-I) Judge Special Court (POCSO Act), Addl. Sessions Judge-01 (NE) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.16/2016-FIR No.1207/2015 PS Bhajanpura page 16 of 16