Delhi District Court
State vs Accused on 21 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT) KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI
Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0041432012
SC NO.48/13 Date of Institution :27.02.2012
FIR No.400/11 Date of Argument :15.01.2013
PS Khajoori Khas Date of Order :21.01.2013
U/S 363/376 IPC
State Versus Accused
Tilak Raj
S/o Sh. Chanden Bhan
R/o C-299, Gali No.24,
Khajuri Khas, Delhi
JUDGMENT
The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that on 25.11.2011 Smt. __Y____ r/o _________________Z________ lodged a complaint before the P.S. Khajuri Khas that her daughter __X__, aged about 14 years was missing from her house since 20.11.2011. She doubted that some unknown person might have enticed her and took her with him. FIR No.400 u/s 363 IPC was recorded. Police made search of the girl. On 27.11.2011 Smt. ____Y___ produced her daughter __X__ at the P.S. where her statement was recorded. She stated that in the night of 18.11.2011 when her mother __Y__ had gone to the house of her grand mother at Calcutta her father Tilak SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 1 of 24 Raj committed rape on her and for that reason she left her house. She was got medically examined in GTB Hospital on 25.11.2011. Doctor prepared her MLC and took some samples and after sealing the same handed over to the police. Prosecutrix was produced before the Ld. M.M. for recording of her statement u/s 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, here in after referred to as the Code. On 28.11.2011 statement of Ms. __X__ was recorded. She, inter alia, stated that she was raped by her father in the absence of her mother and brother. Her father, accused was arrested on 01.12.2011. His arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared. He was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded. He was also sent to GTB Hospital for medical examination. Doctor prepared his MLC, prepared samples of blood, semen, and pubic hair and also took into possession his underwear. Those were given to police who sent all the exhibits to FSL for testing. After completion of investigation and obtaining of report, police filed charge sheet against the accused for his trial for the offences punishable u/s 363/376 IPC.
2. On appearance Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate supplied copies of documents to the accused and committed this case to the court of sessions.
SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 2 of 243. Vide his order dated 27.02.2012, my ld. predecessor opined that there was a prima facie case for framing of charge against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC. Therefore, charge against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC was framed and read over to him in vernacular language. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined __X__, Prosecutrix as PW1; Smt. __Y__, mother of prosecutrix as PW2; Smt. Nicky @ Nanhi as PW3; Lady Constable Saroj as PW4; Ct. Hawa Singh as PW5; ASI Baldev Raj as PW6; ASI Tejwati as PW7; Ct. Chander Shekhar as PW8; SI Dharam Singh (Retired) as PW9; HC Bijla Oraon as PW10; __Y1_ younger brother of the prosecutrix as PW11; Ms. Savitri, Metropolitan Magistrate, North East District, Karkardooma Courts as PW12; and Dr. Deepali Garg, Sr. Resident, GTB Hospital as PW13.
5. After closing of prosecution evidence statement of accused u/s 313 of the Code was recorded. Accused admitted that prosecutrix was his daughter and Smt. __Y__ was his wife and __Y1_ was his son and they were residing in the house of __________-____Z_ ____________. He admitted that he was taken to SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 3 of 24 hospital where his medical examination was conducted and samples of his blood, pubic hair were taken, besides, taking underwear. He also admitted that his wife __Y__ had gone to Calcutta on the alleged date, however, he denied the remaining evidence and pleaded that his wife and his daughter were indulging in illicit activities and he used to object those activities. He was falsely implicated by his wife and daughter for that reason. He also pleaded that he was not at home on the alleged night. He submitted that he was innocent.
6. Vide order No.20/372-512/F.3.(4)/ASJ/01/2013 dated 04.01.2013, on constitution of Special Fast Track Courts for trial of sexual offences, Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, transferred this case to this court.
7. In support of his defence, accused examined Sh. Amit Kumar s/o Sh. Leelu, a rikshaw pullar as DW1.
8. After closing of evidence of the parties, I have heard arguments addressed by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel/amicus curiae for the accused and perused file.
9. In order to prove its case against the accused SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 4 of 24 for the offence of rape punishable u/s 376 IPC, prosecution has to prove firstly, that sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix; secondly, that sexual intercourse was committed with her forcibly against her will; and thirdly that he was the accused Tilak Raj who committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly against her will. Let us examine the prosecution evidence on these aspects:
Sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix
10. PW1 on this aspect deposed that her family members comprised of herself, her father Tilak Raj, her mother and brother. She did not remember the month but it was intervening night of 19th and 20th of the month falling in the year 2011 when her mother had gone away to Calcutta from Delhi. She, her father and her brother were present. They all were sleeping in the house in the night. She and her brother were lying on the floor and her father was lying on the cot. Her father took his brother on his bed to sleep and then her father came to the floor of the room to sleep by her side. He came upon her body. He opened string of her salwar and accused took off his underwear. She protested and requested but he did not listen to her request and he caught hold of her hands by his hands. He inserted his male organ into her private part. Accused completed his act of sexual intercourse with her. Next SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 5 of 24 morning he went to the house of her friend Nicky. Her mother returned Delhi after 5-6 days and then she narrated the incident to her mother. Her mother took her to PS where she narrated the incident to police. Police got the prosecutrix medically examined in the hospital and during the medical examination she narrated all the facts of the incident to doctor also and put her thumb impression on MLC at point X. On next day, she was brought to Karkardooma Court where she was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate. She gave her statement and narrated the entire incident.
11. PW2 deposed that she was residing at street No. 24, Khajuri Khas, Delhi when incident had taken place. They were residing as tenant in the house belonging to Gaje. She has a daughter Prosecutrix __X__ and a son __Y1_. ____X___ completed 15 years of age in August 2012. Her husband and her two children used to reside in rental accommodation. Her mother expired on 15.11.2011 and she left Delhi on 17.11.2011 for Calcutta to attend last rites of her mother. Her daughter ____X___ stayed back in the house in Delhi. She returned from Calcutta on 23.11.2011. Her daugter __X__ was not present in the house. She asked her husband about the whereabouts of __X__ and he told that ___X___ had run away from the SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 6 of 24 house on 20.11.2012. She went to PS and lodged missing report about __X__. On 26.11.2011 she traced __X__ who was present at the house of her friend. As soon as she met, she started crying and when she asked the reason for her crying, she told her that she had been raped by her father. She also disclosed that to escape any such repeat of rape she had run away from her house. She took her to PS. Police made inquires from her and got her medically examined. She had given consent for her medical examination. Police recorded her statement and produced before the court where her statement was recorded. Accused Tilak Raj was arrested on 01.12.2011 and his arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and personal search memo Ex.PW2/B were prepared which were thumb impressed by her at point A.
12. PW11 deposed that he was a student of class third on the day of occurrence. He did not recollect the date but in the night he woke up in order to take water and saw that her father Tilak had pressed mouth of her sister __X__ and was sitting upon her. His father then asked him in threatening words to go to sleep otherwise he would beat him so he went to sleep. On that night of the incident her mother had gone to Calcutta as her grand mother had expired. All the three witnesses correctly identified the SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 7 of 24 accused Tilak Raj.
13. PW12 deposed that on 28.11.2011, prosecutrix was produced before her for recording of her statement u/s 164 of the code and she had recorded her statement. She proved her statement as Ex.PW12/A. In her statement she, inter alia, stated that in the absence of her mother, her father Tilak Raj fondled with her body and raped her, "meri maa aur mere bhai ki anupasthiti main mere pita Tilak ne mere saath sharirik chhed chhad aur balatkar kiya i.e. usne mere aur phir apne kapde utare aur uske baad usne apna ling meri yoni (peshab karne ki jagah) main dala jiske bad meri yoni se khoon aane laga" and due to that reason she had left her house and went to stay with her friend.
14. PW13 deposed that on 27.11.2011, Dr. Shweta Lal was working as Senior Resident and she had medically examined the prosecutrix __X__. She proved the MLC prepared by Dr. Shweta Lal as PW13/A. On perusal of MLC Ex.PW13/A, I find that doctor, inter alia, stated that hymen of prosecutrix was absent. It has also been mentioned there on that patient was sexually assaulted by her father. It also contains observation of commission of sexual assault on the prosecutrix. In cross examination PW13 also stated that prosecutrix was sexually active. On the basis of SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 8 of 24 the evidence discussed here in above, it is held that prosecution has established that sexual intercourse on prosecutrix was committed.
Sexual intercourse was committed with her forcibly against her will
15. PW1 in her statement recorded by Ld. M.M. under section 164 of the Code as well as in the court stated that accused came upon her body. He opened string of her salwar and he took off his underwear. She protested and requested but he did not listen to her request and he caught hold of her hands by his hands. He inserted his male organ into her private part. Accused completed his act of sexual intercourse with her. Other evidence in detail have been discussed here in above. This statement of prosecutrix coupled with other evidence on record, has proved on record that sexual intercourse was committed on the prosecutrix forcibly against her will.
He was the accused Tilak who committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly against her will
16. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution could not prove its case against accused beyond reasonable suspicion and shadow of doubt as there are material contradictions in the testimonies of SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 9 of 24 prosecutrix, her mother and her brother. The character of prosecutrix and her mother was not good as they were indulging with illicit relations with other persons. Accused used to object and for that reason he was falsely implicated in the present case. It has also been argued that statement of prosecutrix is doubtful because she remained with her friend PW3 but she did not disclose about the alleged incident to her at any point of time. Besides, the I.O. has failed to interrogate the neighbour and record their statements. The accused has proved the illicit relations by adducing evidence. It has been submitted that accused is entitled for acquittal.
17. On the other hand, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the minor contradictions are liable to be ignored. She relied on a case in State v. Jai Hind, 2012 VI AD (Delhi) 170 wherein it was held by Delhi High Court that:
"32. ***In Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 where the Court held:
"The rule, which according to cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction, but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge... The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 10 of 24 rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand."*** "38. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1393, the Supreme Court held that in cases involving sexual offences, harassment, molestation etc. the court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. It was held that:
"The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurances to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations." [Emphasis supplied]
18. On analyzing the evidence on record, I find contradiction on the presence of brother at the time of commission of offence. The prosecutrix in her statement made to the ld M.M. under section 164 of the Code stated that her father committed rape on her in the absence of her mother and brother. In the statement made in the court she deposed that her brother was also present in the same room where her father committed rape on her.
SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 11 of 2419. I am also convinced that evidence on record has proved that the prosecutrix did not disclose commission of rape by her father to her friend PW3. PW3 on this aspect deposed that in the year 2011 on date 20th, __X__ met her and asked her to permit her and provide her a space in her house for sleeping. She also disclosed that her maternal grand mother had expired and her mother had gone to Calcutta and she was alone at the house and was scared. She allowed __X__ to stay at her house. In cross examination she admitted that her friend prosecutrix did not tell any fact regarding commission of rape on her by her father.
20. On examination of evidence, I am not convinced with the arguments of the ld. defence counsel that failure of investigation officer to join any independent person in the investigation of this case has resulted into unfair investigation. In my view IO has joined all the necessary witnesses during investigation of this case.
21. PW7 IO in her statement denied the suggestion that mother of the prosecutrix was a lady of bad character or that she falsely implicated her husband accused as he used to ask her not to indulge in illicit activities. PW2 mother of the prosecutrix also denied the suggestion that SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 12 of 24 she and her daughter were indulging in illicit activities or that her husband accused used to ask them not to indulge in such activities or that due to that reason he was falsely implicated in false case. Thus evidence on record could not establish on record that the prosecutrix or her mother were indulging in illicit activities and the accused has been falsely implicated because he used to ask them not to indulge in such activities.
22. On scrutiny of evidence I find that the prosecutrix had told her mother PW2 regarding fondling with body of the prosecutrix by the accused prior to the present incident. She explained that she did not make complaint against the accused in that regard as on asking, her husband had refused to have done any fondling with the prosecutrix. In my view her explanation is satisfactory in this regard and non reporting of or non lodging of any complaint in this regard is not fatal to the prosecution case.
23. The accused by the evidence of DW1 tried to prove that the prosecutrix was a girl of bad character. DW1 noticed a boy in the house of the accused at about 1/1;30 A.M. on 21.2.2012. The accused gave him 2/3 slaps. The date of present incident is 20.11.2011. The accused was in SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 13 of 24 JC on that date. It is unbelievable that DW1 was with the accused or that he slapped the boy twice or thrice. Even otherwise law does not permit anybody to sexually assault a girl of bad character.
24. It has to be seen if the above arguments of ld. defence counsel or the minor contradictions provide any benefit to the accused. My attention goes to a case of Ramesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (HP) 2004(4) Crimes 60, wherein the HP High Court observed:
"15. There are minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but because of errors in individual perceptions and observations such contradictions are bound to occur. Secondly with the passage of time lapse of memory can also lead to minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. Human tendency to back up good cases by exaggerated version can be yet another reason for contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, while appreciating the evidence the Courts are not to attach undue importance to minor contradictions and discrepancies in the version given by the witnesses and not to disbelieve such statements as a whole because of such minor discrepancies/contradictions unless they go to the root of the case. The Court may ignore exaggerated part of the testimony and may act upon the part which may be otherwise reliable and trustworthy."
25. In case of Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1999(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 588 :
SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 14 of 241999 A.I.R. (SC) the Apex Court Observed:
"9. Be it noted that the High Court is within its jurisdiction being the first appellate court to re-appraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in the ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 88 : AIR 1985 SC 48. In paragraph 10 of the report, its Court observed :
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 15 of 24 about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate Court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trival details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals."
26. In case of Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 the Apex Court in paragraph 13 observed:
"The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy."
27. In view of the principles of law laid down in case State v. Jai Hind (supra), Ramesh v. State of Himachal SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 16 of 24 Pradesh, (HP) (supra), Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (SC) (supra), and Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat (supra), it is held that the minor contradiction referred to here in above will not provide any benefit to the accused.
28. After considering the rival contentions of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and analyzing the evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that there are reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to establish that he was the accused who committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will. The reasons which support my conclusion are firstly that that the prosecutrix in her statement made to the Ld. M.M. under section 164 of the Code, and before this court has made consistent statement that her father committed sexual intercourse on her. Her statement has proved all the ingredients of offence of rape. I find her statement, referred to here in above, reliable and trustworthy and away from any ambiguity inconsistency and contradiction.
29. Secondly, the sole eye witness who is the younger brother of the prosecutrix, PW11 aged about 8 years, corroborated her statement. He deposed that on SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 17 of 24 that night of the incident when it was quite late in the night he awoke up in order to take water and he saw his father Tilak had pressed the mouth of her sister and he was sitting upon her. His father told him in threatening works to go to sleep otherwise he would beat him and accordingly he went to sleep. Her mother was not at home as she had gone to Calcutta since last 3-4 days as her mother had expired.
30. Thirdly, other witnesses also supported the prosecution case. For example, PW4 corroborated the fact of taking prosecutrix to Hospital for medical examination; giving of MLC and samples to her, handing over the same to IO and taking over the same by him vide memo. EX. PW4/A. PW5 supported the case of the prosecution on the point of arrest of accused, preparation of arrest memo EX. PW2; personal search memo. EX. PW2/A; taking of accused to Hospital; his medical examination; taking of MLC and samples and handing over the same to IO and taking those into possession vide memo. EX. PW2/B. PW6 supported the case of the prosecution by proving DD 20 A as EX. PW6/A and copy of FIR as EX. PW6/B. PW8 proved tha fact of taking samples to FSL. PW10 proved the fact of deposit of case property to Malkhana at PS and sending those exhibits to FSL. PW12 Ld. M.M. proved statement of SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 18 of 24 prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of the Code. PW13 proved the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW13/A. PW7 and PW9 both the IO further corroborated the prosecution case on material particulars. Nothing in their cross examination could come out which may provide any benefit to the accused or create reasonable suspicion or shadow of doubt in prosecution case.
31. Fourthly, although Ld. Defence Counsel took a plea of alibi, yet accused could not proved that he was not present on the alleged date, time and place of occurrence. The accused even failed to create any reasonable suspicion and shadow of doubt about his absence on the alleged date, time and place of occurrence. DW1 told a different date i.e. 21.02.2012 of absence of the accused from the place of occurrence instead of absence of accused on 18.11.2011. Therefore, the testimony of DW1 will not provide any benefit to the accused.
32. Fifthly, I am of the view that there was no reason for the prosecutrix and her mother and her brother to depose falsely against father/accused and husband/accused. My view finds supports by a case Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (SC), 1983 A.I.R. (S.C.) 753, wherein the Apex Court observed:
SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 19 of 24"***Without the fear of making too wide a statements or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. 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."
[Emphasis supplied]
33. Lastly, it is not only the duty of the judge to see that one innocent person should not be punished even if hundred offenders are allowed to go scot-free but also he has to see that the accused who has committed the crime must not go unpunished. It is also duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff as held in case of Bhagwan Dass vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396. While considering and analyzing entire prosecution evidence this court has come to the conclusion that all the oral and scientific evidence has proved that the accused Tilak Raj committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix forcibly against her will. Therefore, it is bounden duty of this court to held the accused guilty and convict him.
CONCLUSION
34. In view of the above reasons, discussion and evidence on record and particularly discussed here in SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 20 of 24 above, it is held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused Tilak Raj beyond any reasonable suspicion or shadow of doubt that he committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix forcibly against her will and thereby he committed offence of rape on prosecutrix punishable u/s 376 IPC. Therefore, accused is held guilty and convicted for said offence. Announced in the Open Court Dated:21.01.2013 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge, (SFTC) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 21 of 24 IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, SHAHDARA, DELHI SC NO.48/13 FIR No.400/11 PS Khajoori Khas U/S 376 IPC State Versus Tilak Raj ORDER ON SENTENCE 24.01.2013 Present: Ms. Madhu Arora Addl. P.P. for the State.
Convict/accused in J.C. Sh. Mohd. Hassan Advocate for the convict/accused.
I have heard arguments on the quantum of sentence.
2. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that accused/convict has old parents and minor son; there is no source of income; he is the only bread earner in the family; and he has no previous criminal record. It has been prayed that lenient view in sentence may be taken.
SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 22 of 243. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that deterrent punishment may be awarded to the accused keeping in view that a father committed heinous offence against his own minor daughter so that the message goes to the society and no one dares to commit such a heinous act.
4. Keeping in view the submissions and all relevant factors and circumstances in which the accused committed crime, it would be appropriate if deterrent view in sentence is taken. Accordingly, convict/accused Tilak Raj is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC.
5. It is further ordered that if convict/accused Tilak Raj has undergone any period in judicial custody, that period will be set off against the sentence as provided U/s 428 Cr. P.C.
6. The convict/accused Tilak Raj be sent to imprisonment to serve the sentence.
SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 23 of 247. A copy each of judgment and order on sentence is supplied to convict/accused Tilak Raj free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court Dated:24.01.2013 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge, (SFTC) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.48/13 State Vs. Tilak Raj Page 24 of 24