Delhi District Court
State vs . on 30 March, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 01 NORTH WEST :
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
IN RE : Sessions Case No. : 64/2007
FIR No. :164/2002
P.S. : Uttam Nagar
U/s : 363/376/506/376 (g) /34 IPC
Date of registration : 16-7-2002
Reserved for Judgment on : 16-03-2009
Judgment Announced on : 30-03-2009
State
Vs.
1. Kailash @ Monu
S/o Late Shri Hukum Chand Sharma
R/o House No. D5A, Mahavir Enclave Part III,
Near Binda Pur DDA Flats, New Delhi-110049.
2. Satish S/o Late Shri Hukum Chand Sharma
R/o House No. D5A, Mahavir Enclave Part III,
Near Binda Pur DDA Flats, New Delhi-110049.
3. Neelambar @ Santosh
S/o Shri Ghanesh Jha
R/o House No. 185, Madhu Vihar, Gali No. 7,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
4. Vir Singh @ Veeru S/o Ram Kumar
R/o House No. B-657, DDA Flats,
Binda Pur, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 23-03- Contd....
22002, at about 11:30 a.m prosecutrix started from her house for going to Escorts Hospital and at about 11:35 a.m when she reached at Shani Bazar Chowk, DDA Flats, Bindapur, accused Kailash @ Monu met her and asked her as to where she was going. The prosecutrix told him that she was going to Escorts Hospital and would take the bus from C-1. Accused Kailash said, he was also going to that place and would drop her there.
2. So, Prosecutrix sat on his motorcycle, but instead of going to C-1 Janakpuri accused turned the motorcycle towards GZ Block, Bindapur. On the asking of the prosecutrix, he told her that he had to take his helmet from the house of his brother. Accused stopped the motorcycle in front of a house in RZ block and pushed opened the door of that house. Accused then caught hold of the hand of prosecutrix and pulled her inside the said house. Three other persons were also there in that room and accused Kailash called one of them by the name of Satish Bhaiya and other two by the names of Santosh and Biru. Prosecutrix asked accused Kailash to go but he asked her to wait for some time.
3. Thereafter other three boys went to another room and Contd....
3accused Kailash removed the clothes of the prosecutrix without her consent and committed rape upon her. On the protest of the prosecutrix accused Kailash threatened her to kill if she made hue and cry. Thereafter Satish, Santosh and Biru after threatening her to kill also committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix was threatened not to disclose this incident to anybody, and turned out of the house at about 3:00 p.m. The prosecutrix reached her house and told this fact to her mother and then the prosecutrix alongwith her mother reached PS Uttam Nagar and got her statement recorded.
4. On the statement of the prosecutrix, FIR bearing No. 164/2002 was registered at P.S Utttam Nagar and investigation went underway. Accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation final report U/s 173 Cr.P.C was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
5. On 5-2-2003, charge U/s 366 IPC was framed against accused Kailash @ Monu and a separate charge Us/ 376(g) IPC Contd....
4and U/s 506/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. The mainstay of the case of the prosecution are the prosecutrix and her mother who have been examined by the prosecution as PW 1 and PW 6 whose testimony I will discuss in the later part of the judgment.
7. PW 2 is Dr. Nishu Dhawan who on 24-3-2002 had medically examined accused Kailash, Vir Singh and Satish with regard to their capability of doing sexual intercourse and she proved her report as Ex. PW 2/A, PW 2/B and PW 2/C respectively with regard to accused Kaliash, Vir Singh and Satish .
8. PW 3 is Dr. Ashutosh Gupta, he on 24-3-2002 had medically examined accused Santosh with regard to his capability of doing sexual intercourse and proved his report as Ex. PW 3/A.
9. PW 4 H.C. Raj Singh had registered the FIR of this case and proved the carbon copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 4/A. He also made his endorsement on the ruqqa and proved the same as Ex. PW 4/B. Contd....
5
10. PW 5 is lady constable Krishna who on 23-3-2002 took the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital for her medical examination. She deposed that after medical examination of the prosecutrix one sealed slide alongwith the sample seal was received and afater taking the sealed slife and sample seal she alongwith the prosecutrix and her mother came to police post and handed over the same to the chowki incharge in intact condition which were seized by the chowki incharge vide memo Ex. PW 5/A. According to her on 26-3-2002 the underwear of the prosecutrix was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW 5/B.
11. PW 7 H.C. Virender Singh is the MHC(M) of PS Uttam Nagar and deposed about deposit of various articles, recovered and seized in the case. He proved the copy of the relevant entries in register No. 19 as Ex. PW 17/A.
12. PW 8 Smt. Kiran Devi is the owner of the motorcycle No DL 4S AD 2687 which was seized by the police after 10 / 15 days of the incident. She proved the superdarinama of the motorcycle as Ex. PW 6/A. Contd....
6
13. PW 9 is SI Anil Kumar. He remained associated with the IO during the investigation of the case. According to him on 23-3- 2002 he took prosecutrix alongwith lady constable Krishna and her mother Mithlesh to DDU hospital for her medical examination. After the medical examiantion lady constable Krishna handed over one sealed slide alongwith the sample seal to the IO who seized them vide memo Ex PW 5/A.
14. He further deposed that prosecutrix had led them to the place of occurrence, place was inspected and IO prepared the site plan in his presence on the pointing out of the prosecutrix. He further deposed that on the identification of the prosecutrix on 24- 3-2002 accused Kailash and his brother Satish and thereafter accused Nilambar Jha and Veer Singh were arrested and their arrest memos were prepared by the IO. He proved the arrest memos of the accused persons as Ex. PW 1/E PW 1/G, PW 1/I and PW 1/B and their personal search memos as Ex. PW 1/H, PW 1/F, PW 1/D and PW 1/C.
15. He further deposed that accused persons made disclosure statements which were recorded by the IO. He proved the Contd....
7disclosure statements of accused Kailash, Nilambhar Jha, Satish Kumar and accused Veer Singh as Ex. PW 9/A to Ex. PW 9/D respectively. He further deposed that thereafter accused persons were taken to the hospital for their medical examination. The sealed exhibits which were received from the hospital were handed over to the IO.
16. PW 10 is Dr. Bhawna who on 24-3-2002 medically examined the prosecutrix and she proved the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW 10/A.
17. PW 11 is constable Pritam Singh who on 18-6-2002 had taken ten sealed parcels containing exhibits of this case alongwith five sample seals, two copies of RC No. 98/21 and one forwarding letter to FSL Malviyan Nagar for analysis from the custody of MHCM at the request of the IO. He deposited the same there, came back to the police station and handed over the receipt regarding deposit of the same to H.C. Virender Singh.
18. PW 12 Dr. Rajendra Kumar is the Sr. Scientific Officer FSL Rohini, Delhi. He proved his reports as Ex. PW 12/A and B and the forwarding letter as Ex. PW 12/C. Contd....
8
19. PW 13 Ms. Rajesh Kumar is the principal, Navjivan Academy, Sr. Sec. School, Madhu Vihar, Dwarka. She proved the transfer / leaving certificate of prosecutrix issued by her on 5- 4-2002 as Ex. PW 13/A. She deposed that as per school leaving certificate, date of birth of prosecutrix is 24-12-1984. She also proved the copy of entry of admission in admission register as Ex. PW 13/B. She further proved the previous school leaving certificate submitted on behalf of prosecutrix at the time of admission as Ex. PW 13/C and copy of admission form of prosecutrix as Ex. PW 13/D.
20. PW 14 is constable Kabool Singh. He alongwith IO SI Kashmiri Lal, constable Rajesh, constable Suresh had taken accused Kailash, Veer Singh, Santosh and Satish to DDU Hospital for their medication examination on 24-3-2002. According to him accused persons were medically examined and their MLCs were collected by the IO. Semen and undergarments of all four accused persons were taken and sealed by the doctor and the same were taken in possession by the IO.
21. PW 15 is constable Rajesh who also remained associated Contd....
9with the IO and PW 9 SI Anil Kumar during the investigation of this case. He disclosed about the sequence of investigation and deposed on the lines of PW 9 SI Anil Kumar.
22. PW 16 H.C. Virender Singh is the MHC(M) who has already been examined as PW 7 by the prosecution and it seems that inadvertently he has been again examined as PW 16.
23. PW 17 SI Kashmere Lal is the IO of the case. He unfolded the sequence of investigation done by him. He proved his endorsement made by him on the statement of the prosecutrix Ex. PW 1/A as Ex. PW 17/A, site plan of the place of incident prepared by him at the pointing out of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW 17/B and he further proved the memo vide which the motorcycle was taken into possession as Ex. PW 17/C.
24. After the closing of the prosecution evidence statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and incriminating evidence was put to them. Accused persons denied the same and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. No evidence in defence was led by the accused persons.
25. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and the counsel for the Contd....
10accused persons and have also gone through the records of the case.
26. It is urged by the Ld. APP that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and thus they be convicted for the offence for which they have been charged.
27. On the other hand, it is urged by the counsel for the accused persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated. It is further urged that there are major contradictions and improvements in the testimony of PW 1 and PW 6. It is further urged that the prosecutrix used to do sexual intercourse and is not having unblemished record and has eloped from her house 2-3 times. It is further urged that a DD was also lodged by her father on that account. It is further urged that there is a delay in the registration of the FIR. It is further urged that neither the prosecutrix nor her mother has produced any interview letter.
28. PW 1 prosecutrix has deposed that on 23-3-2002 she started from her house at about 11:00 a.m for going to Escorts Hospital and when she reached near Shani Bazar, accused Kailash Contd....
11who was on motorcycle met her and asked her as to where she was going. She told him, she was going to bus stand C-1 Block for catching bus for Escort Hospital. Accused Kaialsh told her that he was also going there and he would drop her at C-1 bus stand.
29. She deposed that initially she refused but on his insistence sat on his motorcycle. Instead of taking her to C-1 bus stand accused Kailash took her to the house of his elder brother Satish who was living at RZ-47, Binda Pur. She further deposed that when he did not turn his motorcycle for C-1 bus stand but turned towards RZ Block Binda Pur, she asked him as to where he was taking her. She deposed that accused Kailash told her that he had to take his helmet from the house of his brother Satish. Accused Kailash stopped his motorcycle in front of the house at RZ Block and pushed open the door.
30. At that time the prosecutrix was standing near the motorcycle and after pushing the door accused Kailash held her by his hand and took her inside the house where three persons namely Santosh, Biru and Satish were present. She further Contd....
12deposed that she had asked accused Kailash to go out from that place but he did not move but the other three boys left the room. Thereafter accused Kailash removed her clothes without her consent. She was also slapped by the accused and the accused raped her. She further deposed that before committing rape accused Kailash gave her fist blow in her stomach.
31. She further deposed that after committing rape accused Kailash left that room and thereafter accused Satish committed rape and thereafter accused Santosh @ Nilambar Jha and accused Biru @ Bir Singh also raped her. She further deposed that accused persons threatened her to kill if she disclosed the incident to any one. She was turned out of the house at about 3:00 p.m. She came back to the house and narrated the incident to her mother. Thereafter she took bath and changed her clothes. She further deposed that she went to PS Dabari alongwith her mother and then to PS Uttam Nagar and lodged report Ex. PW 1/A.
32. The prosecutrix further deposed that initially her mother was not interested to report the matter for the sake of prestige of the family but on her insistence the matter was reported to the Contd....
13police. She further deposed that she had taken the police to the place of occurrence. She further deposed that her clothes were not taken in the hospital as she was wearing different clothes including the undergarments because she had taken bath.
33. She further deposed that on her pointing out accused Satish was arrested from his house, accused Kailash was arrested from a road near PS Dabri. She further deposed that address of accused Biru @ Veer Singh was taken by the police from accused Kailash and Satish. She further deposed that police had taken accused Satish and Kailash with them and brought Veeru to the police station.
34. She further deposed that when accused Kailash was arrested from road side accused Santosh @ Nilambar Jha was also with him. She further deposed that after the occurrence accused Satish and Kailash had threatened to kill her in case she narrated the incident to any one.
35. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP with regard to the place of arrest of accused Veer Singh and Nilambar. In the cross examination she stated that accused Veer Singh and Contd....
14Nilambar were arrested from house No. 68 E DDA Flat Binda Pur.
36. PW 6 is the mother of the prosecutrix. She deposed that on the date of the incident at about 3:30 p.m her daughter came back home and she was crying bitterly. On her asking she told her that accused Kailash had took her to the house of accused Satish at Bindapur on his motorcycle and when they reached there accused Kailash pulled her inside the house where she was raped by the accused persons.
37. She further deposed that she had taken her daughter to PS Dabri and from there they went to PS Uttam Nagar and lodged the complaint with the police. She further deposed that from there they had gone to the house of Kailash who was not present and thereafter they went to the house of Satish. She further deposed that accused Kailash and Veeru were arrested from Dabri.
38. Let me first see what was the age of the prosecutrix on the date of offence, although there is no serious contest either from the side of the defence or from the side of the prosecution with regard to her age. PW 13 who is Ms. Rajesh Kumari, Principal, Contd....
15Navjivan Academy, Sr. Sec. School. Madhu Vihar, Dwarka, Sector-3, Delhi has proved on record the transfer/leaving certificate of prosecutrix issued by her as Ex. PW 13/A, copy of entry of admission as Ex. PW 13/B, copy of previous school leaving certificate submitted on behalf of the prosecutrix at the time of admission as Ex. PW 13/C, copy of admission form of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW 13/D and according to the record the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 24-12-1984. The date of incident is dated 23-2-2002. So in any case the prosecutrix was more than 17 years but less than 18 years on the date of offence.
39. On the date of the incident according to the prosecutrix she was going to Escorts Hospital for an interview for the post of receptionist whereas her mother says she was going for the post of telephone operator but this hardly makes much difference. When she was on her way accused Kailash came on motorcycle and insisted the prosecutrix to sit on it as he was also going to C- 1 bust stand.
40. The prosecutrix therefore sat on the motorcycle and he took the motorcycle to RZ Block Binda Pur where she was gang Contd....
16raped. The counsel for the accused persons has laid much stress on the fact that why did she not try to get down from the motorcycle. He further stressed that she has not stated in her statement Ex. PW 1/DA that she sat on the motorcycle on the insistence of accused Kailash. The counsel also laid much stress on the qualification of the prosecutrix and according to him the prosecutrix didn't posses requisite qualification to be a receptionist in Escorts Hospital.
41. With regard to the contention that the prosecutrix has not stated in Ex. PW 1/DA that she sat on the motorcycle of accused Kailash on his insistence, cannot be said to be an improvement and that benefit be given to accused has to be rejected because this was asked from her in the cross examination and she clarified and gave the reason as to why she sat on the motorcycle.
42. Now coming to the next contention that why she didn't get down from the motorcycle or raised hue and cry when the accused instead of going to C 1 bus stand turned the motorcycle towards Binda Pur. This contention needs to be rejected because the prosecutrix has categorically stated that when she asked Contd....
17accused Kailash as to where he was going who then told her that he was going to take his helmet. So hearing such an answer there was no occasion for the prosecutrix to doubt or suspect the intentions of the accused and she quietly kept sitting on the motorcycle.
43. No doubt the prosecutrix has failed to produce any interview letter or she may not be possessing the requisite qualification to get employment in Escorts Hospital, this in itself is not in my opinion a sufficient ground to completely belie her testimony and give benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
44. The prosecutrix has stated that when she reached RZ Block Binda Pur accused Kailash pulled her inside the house where three other accused persons viz. Satish, Nilambar @ Santosh, Vir Singh @ Veeru were present and she has described the manner in which she was raped by them. No doubt there are improvements in her testimony given in the court with regard to what happened in the said house where she was raped but in my opinion, the improvements are not of such a nature so as to dislodge the prosecutrix, and they are bound to appear when the Contd....
18witness comes to depose after a lapse of time.
45. The prosecutrix had also received injuries which is clear from the testimony of PW 10 Dr. Bhawna who has medically examined her and observed that the prosecutrix was having bruise marks over her left breast purplish in colour above the left nipple. This witness has stated in the cross examination that the bruises of purplish colour, bluish colour and reddish blue or reddish purple can be remain for one or two days or can be few hours old.
46. The next contention of the Ld. defence counsel is that the father of the prosecutrix had lodged a DD about her missing. He further urged that the prosecutrix was in the habit of eloping and doesn't have unblemished character and she is used to sexual intercourse.
47. This contention of the Ld defence counsel needs to be outrightly rejected because even if a prosecutrix in a given case has been promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone or every one and it did not give licence to any person to rape her.
Contd....
19
48. The next contention of the Ld defence counsel is that there is a delay in the registration of the FIR. Mere delay in the registration of the FIR is no ground do doubt the case of the prosecutrix that the evidence given by her should not be accepted. There may be various reasons for filing a complaint after some delay. In the instant case the prosecutrix was turned out by the accused persons and she reached her house at around 3:00 p.m and narrated the incident to her mother. The prosecutrix has deposed that they first went to PS Dabri and they were sent to PS Uttam Nagar where her report was lodged. It is a matter of common knowledge that the police is not prompt in lodging the FIR and they raise all type of factual as well as technical objections before registering the same, and it is an uphill task to get the FIR registered.
49. The prosecutrix has further deposed that initially her mother was not interested in lodging the report as she did not want the fact to be known to the people of society and for the sake of prestige of the family. But the report was lodged on the insistence of the prosecutrix at 11:10 p.m. This reason for delay Contd....
20given by the prosecutrix has been confronted by her previous statement Ex. PW 1/A as the same was not stated by her in this statement. May be she has not stated so in her first statement or that she stated and was not written by the police, whatever be the reasons but in my opinion, the explanation given by the prosecution for the delay is well justified and it is not such to doubt the case of the prosecution.
50. So keeping in view the explanation given by the prosecutrix in my opinion, the delay is not such to doubt the case of the prosecution and it is seen that after giving it a cool thought a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged because the incident concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family.
51. With regard to the "rape", it was urged by the counsel for the accused persons that the prosecutrix has not used the word "rape" in her statement Ex. PW 1/A and she had made improvements in the court. No doubt in her statement Ex. PW 1/A the prosecutrix has not specifically used the word "rape" but she has categorically stated that accused Kailash removed her clothes Contd....
21against her will and committed wrong act with her despite her resistance and threatened to kill her if she raised her voice. She has also stated that the remaining three accused persons namely Satish, Santosh and Viru also committed wrong act with her.
52. Simply because the prosecutrix has not used the word "rape" can her statement be faulted and her testimony rendered unreliable and unbelievable when she has clearly stated that when she was in the room her clothes were removed. The answer is no. One can very well understand the plight of a young girl with her clothes removed and in the captivity of 4 young man ready to pounce upon her and take turns.
53. In my opinion, in such circumstances no benefit can be given to the accused persons simply for the reason of not mentioning the word "rape" when from the reading of her statement in totality it clearly indicates that she was ravished by the accused persons.
54. It is then urged by the Ld defence counsel that no rape was committed so she had told the police and the doctor that she has changed her clothes and he further urged that it is improbable Contd....
22that during the month of march a person at about 3 / 4 O'Clock would take bath again. This argument of the Ld counsel for the accused persons is preposterous. There is no hard and fast rule for anybody to take bath at any point of time during any month of the year. Here we must not forget that the prosecutrix is a victim of gang rape and 4 persons have touched her and ravished her. So may be in order to clean her body and soul the prosecutrix took bath after coming home without caring for the effect it might have on her case.
55. No doubt there are discrepancies in the statement of PW 1 and PW 6 with regard to the arrest of accused persons but looking into the testimony of the prosecutrix which is otherwise reliable, these discrepancies cannot be allowed to over shadow her statement regarding the commission of rape. One must not loose sight of the fact that the investigation as far as public witnesses are concerned is very confusing, complicated and is a very cumbersome process and experience has shown that witnesses are not aware of the proceedings done by the police who keep on preparing the documents themselves and obtain the Contd....
23signatures of the witnesses and when the witnesses appears in the witness box they some times had to cut a sorry figure and subject themselves to confrontation with their previous statement and look like fool and in order to avoid such a situation they make improvements. The prosecutrix and her mother were extensively grilled by the defence counsel but nothing substantial came out which could dislodge the case of the prosecution.
56. It is well settled law that if the witness appears in the court for deposition then obviously some contradictions and improvements are bound to occur. However, in view of the contradictions and improvements pointed out by the Ld. defence counsel whether the entire statement of Pws can be thrown away. The court has to see whether the statement of the witnesses are trust worthy or the entire fabric of their statement is destroyed by such improvements and contradictions.
57. The prosecutrix was examined in chief on two dates and she was cross examined on two other dates so her cross examination and examination in chief concluded on four dates. So there are bound to be contradictions and improvements in her Contd....
24statement. However, the contradictions and improvements as pointed out doesn't effect the substratum of the case of the prosecution.
58. In view of the discussions hereinabove, it has been proved by the prosecution that the prosecutrix was brought by accused Kailash on his motorcycle to the house of accused Satish at RZ-47 Binda Pur, Delhi where other accused persons were already present who all then raped the prosecutrix.
59. Accused Kailash has also been charged U/s 366 IPC in addition to sections 376 (g) and 506/34 IPC. According to the prosecutrix when she was going to catch the bus from C-1 bus stand accused Kailash came there on his motorcycle and told her that he was also going to that side and would drop her at C-1 bus stand. On the insistence of the accused Kailash prosecutrix sat on his motorcycle and instead of going to C-1 he went towards Binda Pur and on inquiries from the prosecutrix he told that he had to take his helmet from the house of his brother.
60. The intention of the accused is the basis of the gravamen of an offence under this section. The volition, the intention and Contd....
25the conduct of the accused determine the offence. The intent of the accused is the vital question for determination and once the necessary intent of the accused is established the offence under this section is complete. The intention is a matter of inference from the circumstances of the case and the subsequent conduct of the accused after the kidnapping or abduction has taken place.
61. In the present case the accused from the very beginning never had any intention to drop the prosecutrix at C-1 bus stand and he took her to Binda Pur at the house of his brother on the pretext that he was going there to take his helmet before dropping the prosecutrix at the bus stand. It has also come in the evidence of the prosecutrix that when they reached the house of the brother of accused Kailash she was pulled inside by the accused Kaialsh where other co-accused were also present and they all raped the prosecutrix. So this conduct of the accused clearly shows his evil intentions which were there from the time he offered lift to the prosecutrix.
62. The accused persons have also been charged U/s 506 IPC. From the testimony of the prosecutrix it is crystal clear that all the Contd....
26accused persons in connivance with each other raped the prosecutrix and they threatened to kill her if she disclose the fact of rape to anyone.
63. So in my opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove the charge U/s 366 IPC and charges U/s 376(g)/506/34 IPC against accused Kailash beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has further been able to prove the charges U/s 376(g)/506/34 IPC against accused Satish, Nilambar @ Santosh and Vir Singh @ Veeru beyond reasonable doubt.
64. In view of the discussions hereinabove accused Kailash is held guilty U/s 366 IPC and U/s 376(g)/506/34 IPC and accused Satish, Nilambar @ Santosh and Vir Singh @ Veeru are held guilty U/s 376(g)/506/34 IPC. Accordingly accused Kailash is convicted U/s 366 IPC and U/s 376(g)/506/34 IPC and accused Satish, Nilambar @ Santosh and Vir Singh @ Veeru are convicted U/s 376(g)/506/34 IPC.
(Announced in the open Court on 30-03-2009) (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE 01 NW ROHINI:DELHI Contd....
27IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 01 NORTH WEST :
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI IN RE : Sessions Case No. : 64/2007 FIR No. :164/2002 P.S. : Uttam Nagar U/s : 363/376/506/376 (g) /34 IPC State Vs.
1. Kailash @ Monu S/o Late Shri Hukum Chand Sharma R/o House No. D5A, Mahavir Enclave Part III, Near Binda Pur DDA Flats, New Delhi-110049
2. Satish S/o Late Shri Hukum Chand Sharma R/o House No. D5A, Mahavir Enclave Part III, Near Binda Pur DDA Flats, New Delhi-110049.
3. Neelambar @ Santosh S/o Shri Ghanesh Jha R/o House No. 185, Madhu Vihar, Gali No. 7, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
4. Vir Singh @ Veeru S/o Ram Kumar R/o House No. B-657, DDA Flats, Binda Pur, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard Ld. APP for the state, Sh. B.S. Sharma, Adv., counsel for convict Vir Singh @ Veeru and Nilambar @ Contd....
28Santosh and Sh. Lal Singh Thakur, Adv, counsel for convicts Kailash and Satish on point of sentence.
2. It is urged by the counsels for the convicts that they all are married and have minor children and have never violated the conditions of bail and their conduct have been impeccable during the entire trial; that they have been facing the trial for the last many years. It is further urged that this is a fit case to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 10 years.
3. On the other hand, it is urged by the Ld. APP that the convicts have ruined the life of an innocent girl and they are not entitled to any mercy and maximum punishment be awarded to them.
4. In the present case, the convicts have been charged for gang rape. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self esteem and dignity. It also degrades and humiliates the victim of sexual assault.
Contd....
29
5. The courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic a view as prayed by the counsels for the convicts merely on the ground of lapse of time or considerations personal to the accused will be counter productive and against social interest which needs to be cared for. Leniency in my opinion in matters involving sexual offence is not only undesirable but also against public interest. Such types of offences are to be dealt with severity and with iron hands and any leniency in such matters would be a case of misplaced sympathy.
6. In my opinion, simply because the accused have got married and they are having children doesn't fall in the category of special circumstances for which the convicts can be given a sentence less than the minimum prescribed.
7. Convict Kailash has been convicted by me U/s 366 IPC and U/s 376(g)/506/34 IPC and convicts Satish, Nilambar @ Santosh and Vir Singh @ Veeru have been Contd....
30convicted U/s 376(g)/506/34 IPC vide my judgment dated 30-03-2009.
8. The convicts in the instant case have ravished the body and soul of a helpless girl so I sentence convict Kailash to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months U/s 366 IPC. I further sentence convict Kailash to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months U/s 376 (g)/34 IPC. Convict Kailash is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years U/s 506/34 IPC. All the sentences to run concurrently.
9. I further sentence convicts Satish, Nilambar @ Santosh and Vir Singh @ Veeru to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each U/s 376 Contd....
31
(g)/34 IPC. Convicts Satish, Nilambar @ Santosh and Vir Singh @ Veeru are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each U/s 506/34 IPC. All the sentences to run concurrently. Ordered accordingly.
10. The benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convicts. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convicts free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room. (Announced in the open Court on 24-04-2009) RAJNISH BHATNAGAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 01 NW ROHINI DELHI 24-04-2009 (Copy attached).
Contd....
32 Sessions Case No. : 64/2007 FIR No. :164/2002 P.S. : Uttam Nagar U/s : 363/376/506/376 (g) /34 IPC 24-04-2009 Present : Ld. APP for the State All the convicts produced from J.C. Vide my separate order on sentence of even date convict Kailash has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months U/s 366 IPC. Convict Kailash has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months U/s 376 (g)/34 IPC. Convict Kailash has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years U/s 506/34 IPC. All the sentences to run concurrently.
Convicts Satish, Nilambar @ Santosh and Vir Singh @ Veeru has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each U/s 376 (g)/34 IPC. Convicts Satish, Nilambar @ Santosh and Vir Singh @ Veeru has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each U/s 506/34 IPC. All the sentences to run concurrently.
The benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convicts. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convicts free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 01 NW ROHINI DELHI 24-04-2009 Contd....
33Contd....