Delhi District Court
State vs . Srikant @ Babu @ Rohit on 18 August, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.P.GARG, DISTRICT JUDGEIV,
NEW DELHI
ID No. 02403R0061982010
S.C.No. 29/2010
State Vs. Srikant @ Babu @ Rohit
S/o Vikram Singh
R/o 15/23, PartIInd,
Indira Camp,
Parpar Ganj, Delhi
(Presently in JC)
FIR No. 173/2009
U/S 363/366/376 IPC
PS: Barakhamba Road
Date of institution of the case : 25/02/2010
Date of committal : 17/03/2010
Date when case reserved for orders : 07/08/2010
Date of announcement of judgment : 16/08/2010
(Decided within FIVE months)
J U D G E M E N T:
1 Accused Srikant @ Babu @ Rohit was arrested by the police of PS Barakhamba Road vide FIR no. 173/09 and was challaned to the Court for trial for commission of offences punishable U/s 363/366/376 IPC.
State Vs Srikant 1 of26
2
(A) FACTS
2 In nut shell, case of the prosecution is as under:
Present case was registered by the police of P.S Barakhamba Road on the statement of complainant Sh Ranjit Singh, father of prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name). In his statement to the police, complainant disclosed that he was residing at MS2/14 Atul Grovr Road, New Delhi and was working as driver at Post Office , Meghdoot Bhawan, Delhi. On 10.12.2009, his daughter "X" aged about 16 years had left for her school N.P. Bengali School at around 8.00 AM but did not return from the school thereafter. On the basis of the said information missing report vide DD No. 26A was recorded on 11.12.2009 by the police of PS Barakhamba Road.
3 The complainant further disclosed that he had made efforts to search the prosecutrix but she could not be traced. The complainant suspected Rohit to have kidnapped the prosecutrix with an intention to marry her. The complainant also disclosed to the police involvement of one Smt Chanda in the incident.
4 On 10.12.2009, SI Ashutosh was posted at PS Barakhamba Road. On that day, he recorded above statement of complainant Ranjit Singh. He made his endorsement and got the present case registered. He prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. Efforts were made to trace the prosecutrix at different places but she could not be State Vs Srikant 2 of26 3 traced.
5 Further case of the prosecution is that on 15.12.2009, Charanjit brother of the prosecutrix informed SI Ashutosh that he had received telephone from village Chhijarsi, UP. On the basis of said information, SI Ashutosh alongwith HC Narpat, Charanjit, Pradeep Kumar maternal uncle of proscutrix and Smt Asha Rani grandmother of the prosecutrix reached village Chhijarsi at around 6 AM. At around 6.15 AM Charanjit informed the police that he had traced the prosecutrix on the main road of the village. On that, SI Ashutosh alongwith HC Narpat reached there and recovered the prosecutrix and prepared necessary memo. Prosecutrix was brought at police station from there. 6 Further case of the prosecution is that prosecutrix was got medically examined. She was produced before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and her statement u/s 164 CrPC was got recorded. 7 On the same day at around 5.00PM, the accused was found present near Azad Apartment, near CNG Pump. On the identification of Charanjit Singh, he was arrested and interrogated. Motorcycle and bag which the accused was holding at that time containing some clothes were seized and necessary memos were prepared. The accused was got medically examined.
8 During further investigation, IO collected age certificate from Nagar Palika Girls Senior Secondary School, Gole Market. He State Vs Srikant 3 of26 4 recorded statements of concerned witnesses at different stages of investigation. He got sent the exhibits to FSL and subsequently SI Birendr Singh whom the investigation was assigned, collected the report from FSL. After completion of investigation, he filed the challan against the accused for the commission of the offence punishable U/s 363/366/376 IPC in the Court of Ld. M.M. (B) COMMITAL TO SESSIONS COURT 9 After complying with the provisions of sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C the Ld. M.M committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 4.3.2010.
(C) CHARE
10 After hearing Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Ld.
Counsel for the accused, charge U/s 363/366/376 IPC was ordered to be framed against the accused vide order dated 17.3.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(D) EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION 11 To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses in all including the prosecutrix who was examined as PW3.
(E) STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 CrPC & DE.
12 Statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied his involvement in the commission of the offence. His plea is State Vs Srikant 4 of26 5 that he has been falsely implicated in this case . He and the prosecutrix loved each other. Prosecutgrix used to write love letters to him. Prosecutrix has given false statement at the instance of her parents. He never kidnapped the prsecutrix nor committed rape on her person.
13 Accused examined DW1 Smt Bimla in his defence. 14 I have heard Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the file.
(F) ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. P.P. FOR THE STATE 15 Ld.Addl. PP for the State has argued that prosecution has
established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Prosecutrix was minor on the day of incident. The accused kidnapped the prosecutrix and took her to his house at village Chhijarasi, UP. Prosecutrix was detained there for about 5 days. During that period the accused committed rape on her person.
(G) ARGUMENTS OF LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED 16 On the other hand, Ld.Defence Counsel for the accused
has vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed forcible rape on the State Vs Srikant 5 of26 6 person of prosecutrix. Prosecutrix and the accused were known to each other much prior to the incident and the prosecutrix was having love affairs with the accused and used to write love letters which are on record. The prosecutrix had accompanied the accused with her own free will to his village. No weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of the accused. The prosecutrix was never threatened by the accused . She never raised any alarm during her stay with the accused. The prosecutgrix was consenting party throughout. 17 It is further argued that the prosecutrix was major on the day of incident. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt her exact date of birth of the prosecutrix. No birth certificate of the prosecutrix was produced on record. It is not clear as to on what basis, i.e. affidavit or birth certificate,prosecutrix was got admitted in the school where her date of birth has been recorded as 15.09.1994. The accused is in JC since 15.12.2009 and has been falsely implicated in this case by the parents of the prosecutrix who did not like his relations with the prosecutrix. Reliance is placed on the following authorities:
1. Sunil Vs State of Haryana, (SC) 2010 (1) JCC;
2. Kanchan Dass Vs State (Delhi) 1990, CC Cases 131 (HC); and
3. Sonu Vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 AD (Delhi) 526.
18 I have considered the arguments of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and have scrutinized the State Vs Srikant 6 of26 7 testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witness minutely.
(H) FINDINGS
(a) Whether prosecutrix was a consenting party? 19 On perusal of the evidence adduced on record, I am of the considered view that prosecutrix "X" was a consenting party when she accompanied the accused from her school. There is nothing on record to infer if the accused had forcibly kidnapped the prosecutrix "X" or had used any force to take her with him. The prosecutrix and the accused were known to each other prior to the occurrence. The accused had placed on record number of letters written by prosecutrix "X" to him prior to the incident. The prosecutrix has admitted letters Ex.PW3/DA1 to Ex. PW3/DA13 to have been written by her. She has, however, taken the plea that she had written these letters under threat during her detention at the house of the accused. This plea of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. The manner in which these letters have been written; contents of these letters and such other circumstances rule out the possibility of any threat by the accused when these letters were written by the prosecutrix. Contents of these letters unequivocally show that the prosecutrix and the accused were in intimate relationship prior to the incident and used to meet each other. Apparently, they were having this affair without the State Vs Srikant 7 of26 8 consent and knowledge of the parents of the prosecutrix. 20 On the day of incident, the proecutrix had left the house to go to her school as usual in her school dress. There was no occasion for her parents to suspect any foul play. Accused was waiting on his motorcycle at the gate of the school. Instead of attending the school, the prosecutrix travelled a long distance on the motorcycle of the accused to reach at his house at Ghaziabad, UP. At no stage on the way, the prosectrix raised any alarm to attract attention of public. The prosecutrix, has however, alleged that she did not raise alarm as the accused had threatened her with a knife. No such knife has been recovered from the possession of the accused or at his instance. Moreover, while driving motorcycle, the accused is not expected to continue to show the knife and threaten the prosecutrix not to raise any alarm. The prosecutrix is not presenting true facts on this aspect. After reaching at the house of the accused, both the prosecutrix and the accused stayed there for number of days. During her stay, again, the prosecutrix never complained to anyone regarding her forcible kidnapping. Even the prosecutrix and the accused had sexual relation there. There is nothing on record to infer if at the time of physical relation, the accused used any force to compel the prosecutrix to submit to him. No injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix to infer use of force. Even at the time when the prosecutrix was State Vs Srikant 8 of26 9 apprehended, she was alone and the accused had fled away on his motorcycle on seeing the family members of the prosecutrix. Even at that time, the prosecutrix had not raised any alarm. 21 After the recovery, the prosecutrix was got medically examined. PW14 Dr. Karuna medically examined her and prepared her MLC which is Ex. PW14/A. She recorded history in the MLC as given to her by the prosecutrix herself. In the history, there is specific mention that the prosecutrix had gone willingly with a known acquaintance named Rohit, (18 years), who was a driver by occupation and used to drive some one's car near her home. She knew the accused since June, 20009 and used to talk to him. The accused proposed her to come to his house several times and finally both of them planned and on 10.12.2009 she went to her school in the morning and from there both of them went to the house of the accused in Ghaziabad. She was there till 15.12.2009 when the police recovered them from the house of the accused. This version given by the prosecutrix recorded by PW14 Dr. Karuna soon after her recovery categorically lends credence to the version of the accused that prosecutrix was a consenting party. Contents of the letters written by the prosecutrix to the accused also show her love and affection for the accused. All these facts and circumstances brought on record show that the prosecutrix willingly accompanied the accused to his house in State Vs Srikant 9 of26 10 Ghaziabad and there was no use of force by the accused. It seems that the prosecutrix herself was anxious to go with the accused. 22 On scrutinizing testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it further stands established that during her stay at the house of the accused, both the accused and the prosecutrix had physical relations. Again, I am of this view that physical relationship between the two was the result of free consent of the prosecutrix. In her testimony as PW3 prosecutrix "X" testified that accused had established relations (rape) with her forcibly at his house during those days despite her objection and resistance. MLC Ex. PW14/A does not show if any resistance was there from the side of the prosecutrix at the time of having physical relation with the accused. No external injury was found present on the person of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has failed to explain as to how and under what circumstances in the ''history'' disclosed to PW14 Dr. Karuna she informed that she had physical relations with the accused. She also disclosed to Dr Karuna that there was history of mouthing of breast and oral kissing. She did not reveal to the doctor if she had objected to these acts or had ever resisted the attempts. At no stage, the prosecutrix raised hue and cry to infer forcible rape on her person. Hymen of the prosecutrix was not found intact. Even after physical relationship a day prior to her recovery, the prosecutrix did not object or complained to any person about the act of State Vs Srikant 10 of26 11 rape by the accused. The prosecutrix who was allegedly raped by the accused was not imagined to accompany the accused on his motorcycle in the early morning hours to leave that place prior to her recovery by her family members to avoid their detection/apprehension. These circumstances establish beyond doubt that prosecutrix "X" was consenting party at the time of having physical relation with the accused. She did not even resist her being deflowered by the accused.
(b) Age of the Prosecutrix.
23 In the above scenario, age of the prosecutrix "X" assumes great importance to infer the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has pleaded that prosecutrix "X" was below 16 years on the day of commission of the offence and her date of birth is 15.09.1994. Contrary to that, defence of the accused is that the prosecutrix was major on the day of incident and the prosecution has failed to prove on record any cogent document to establish the date of birth of the prosecutrix. The prosecution has withheld primary evidence showing the age of prosecutrix. Age of the prosecutrix proved by the prosecution as per school record inspires no confidence.
24 On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, I am of this view that prosecution has established that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the day of incident, i.e. 10.12.2009 and her date of birth is 15.9.1994. While appearing as PW3 the prosecutrix "X" on State Vs Srikant 11 of26 12 6.4.2010, disclosed her age as 16 years. In her deposition she categorically stated that her date of birth was 15.9.1994. She was studying in 10th class. In the crossexamination, date of birth disclosed by the prosecutrix was not at all controverted. No other date of birth was suggested to the prosecutrix. No suggestion was put to the prosecutrix that she was major or more than 16 years of age on the date of incident. She was not crossexamined as to how in the school record her date of birth was recorded as 15.9.1994. No suggestion was put to the prosecutrix that her parents had falsely given wrong date of birth in the school record.
25 Sh. Pritam Singh, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has appeared and proved statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW3/A recorded by him. Again, nothing was suggested as to how the prosecutrix happened to record her age as 15 years in the statement u/s 164 CrPC Ex. PW3/A. 26 PW2 Sh Ranjit Singh is father of the prosecutrix "X". He has testified that on 10.12.2009, her daughter "X" aged about 16 years had gone to N P Bengali School, Gole Marget at around 8.00 AM. Again, nothing was suggested in the crossexamination of this witness if she was more than 16 years of age on the day of incident. He was not crossexamined regarding date of birth of the prosecutix recorded in the school records.
State Vs Srikant 12 of26
13
27 In the MLC Ex. PW14/A, proved on record by PW14 Dr
Karuna, the proscutrix had given her age as 15 years. Again, this age mentioned in the MLC Ex. PW14/A was not challenged in the cross examination of PW14 Dr. Karuna.
28 During investigation, IO collected certificate from N P Girls Senior Secondary School, Gole Market, New Delhi where the prosecutrix used to study on the day of incident. In the certificate issued by the school authorities, her date of birth was recorded as 15.9.1994. The prosecution examined PW10 Ms Alka Behl,Senior Teacher, N P Girls Senior Secondary School, Gole Market, New Delhi. She testified that she had issued certificate Ex. PW10/A pertaining to prosecutrix "X", daughter of Sh Ranjit Singh, a student in their school. As per this school certificate her date of birth was 15.9.1994. This information was also verified by the class teacher Ms Surjit Kaur. Certificate Ex. PW10/A was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/B. In the crossexamination, this witness was unable to tell as to on which date the prosecutrix took admission in the school. She was unable to tell if the admission was done in the school on the basis of birth certificate or on the basis of affidavit. However, no suggestion was put to this witness in the crossexamination if the date of birth recorded in Ex. PW10/A was false and fabricated. No suggestion was put to the witness if prosecuteix was major on the day of incident.
State Vs Srikant 13 of26
14
29 Since PW10 Ms Alka Behl was unable to disclose as to how
date of birth 15.9.1994 was recorded in the school records and the IO had not collected relevant record on the basis of which certificate ex. PW10/A was issued by the school authorities, in the interest of justice, court witness from this school was ordered to be summoned to produce all the relevant record showing the age of the prosecutrix at the time of her admission in the school vide order dated 17.7.2010. In pursuance of the order dated 17.7.2010, Court Witness No. 1 Sh Rattan Singh of N P Girls Senior Secondary School, Gole Market, New Delhi appeared in the witness box and testified that he had brought summoned record, i.e. admission record of prosecutrix "X" who was admitted in their school vide Admission No. 1197R on 15.4.2008 in 9th Class on the basis of her previous school leaving certificate issued by N P Girls Middle School, Gole Market, New Delhi. As per that record, her date of birth was 15.9.1994. He further stated that he had brought the admission register and original school leaving certificate submitted by the student in their school. Photocopy of the school leaving certificate of the previous school was Ex. CW1/A and the entry regarding her admission in the school in the admission register was Ex. CW1/B. 30 This witness was crossexamined neither by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state nor by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. No State Vs Srikant 14 of26 15 suggestion was put to this witness in the crossexamination that school leaving certificate or the entry regarding the admission of the prosecutrix was fabricated documents and did not depict correct age of the prosecutrix.
31 Since the IO had not collected any document from the school where the prosecutrix had taken admission at the first instance, it was not clear as to on what basis the date of birth was recorded in the initial school,vide order dated 2.8.10 again record was ordered to be summoned from N P Girls Middle School, Gole Market, New Delhi to ascertain the date of birth recorded in the said school at the time of initial admission of the proscutrix. In pursuance of the court order dated 2.8.2010, Court Witness No. 2 Sh Mukesh Kumar appeared from N P Girls Middle School, Gole Market, New Delhi and testified that he had brought summoned record in respect of admission of prosecutrix "X" in their school. She was admitted in their school on 22.4.1998 in class Ist "A". As per school record her date of birth was 15.9.1994. He further stated that he had brought school admission register and as per entry No. 5989 dated 22.4.98 prosecutrix "X" was admitted in the said school. Photocopy of the relevant entry was Ex. CW2/A. He further clarified that father of the prosecutrix "X" has submitted affidavit regarding her date of birth as 15.9.1994 alongwith application form for admission. True copies of the application form and affidavit were Ex.
State Vs Srikant 15 of26
16
CW2/B and Ex.CW2/C. In the crossexamination by the accused, this
witness fairly admitted that at the time of admission of the prosecutrix, her parents had not submitted any birth certificate etc. issued by MCD. Admission form was signed by Smt Kiranjit, mother of the prosecutrix. The affidavit filed on record was attested by Oath Commissioner. The stamp paper on which the affidavit was sworn showed the date of purchase as 20.4.1997.
32 From the school record proved by the prosecution, it stands established that prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the day of incident and her date of birth as 15.9.1994 recorded in the school record can't be doubted. The prosecutrix was got admitted in class Ist A in N P Girls Middle School way back in 1998 and her date of birth was disclosed as 15.9.1994. An affidavit containing this date of birth as 15.9.1994. was also filed at the time of her admission in the school. There was no change in the date of birth in the school record at any stage till the incident. At the time of leaving the school where the prosecutrix had studied up to middle standard, in the school leaving certificate, date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded as 15.9.1994. This date of birth was again recorded in the present school where she was studying at the time of incident when she took admission in 9th class. The incident had taken place in the year 2009. The prosecutrix or her parents are not imagined to get false date of birth recorded in State Vs Srikant 16 of26 17 the school record. They could not anticipate any such tragic incident to happen in future. The entries in the school record of both the schools without any ''addition'' or ''alteration'' inspire confidence. All these records were maintained in due course of official duties by the officials of the school in the performance of their duties and are to be believed. Entries in the admission form, admission register, school leaving certificate and affidavit all showing date of birth of the prosecutrix as 15.9.1994 in the absence of any document to the contrary prove beyond doubt that prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the day of incident.
33 The accused did not examine any witness or produce on record any document to show if the prosecutrix was major on the day of occurrence or that the documents produced on record by the prosecution were forged and fabricated. The authorities relied upon by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
34 In the case of "Sunil Vs State of Haryana" (supra) there was no primary evidence as to the age of the prosecutrix. Prosecution had failed to get the prosecutrix examined by Dental surgeon or the Radiologist despite the fact of being referred by the doctor who clinically examined her. In the said case, prosecution failed to produce any admission form of the school. The school leaving certificate relied State Vs Srikant 17 of26 18 upon by the prosecution was alleged to have been procured on 12.9.1996, six days after the incident and three days after the arrest of the accused therein. The school leaving certificate itself was not believed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the reasons mentioned in the judgement. In the present case, the prosecution has not only proved the school leaving certificate but the admission records of the prosecution from the very inception.
35 In the case of " Kanchan Dass Vs State" (supra) the school leaving certificate was also doubted. No copy of the admission form was proved on record. Address of the parents of the prosecutrix was also not given. It was admitted by the father of the prosecutrix therein that the prosecutrix had taken admission in Primary School, st Nand Nagri in 1 Class. However, that record was not taken into possession by the IO. For that reasons the school leaving certificate was not believed. Again in this case the facts are quite different in view of the ample record showing the age of the prosecutrix as 15.9.1994. 36 In the case of "Sonu Vs State (NCT) of Delhi" (supra) prosecution therein had relied upon the ossification report. No documentary evidence in the shape of birth certificate, school certificate was adduced during the trial. No other cogent evidence was placed on record by the prosecution to indicate exact age of the proecutrix. It was observed that the age determined through State Vs Srikant 18 of26 19 radiological examination was not exact and might vary by two years on either side and benefit of this variation must be given to the accused. In the said case age of the prosecutrix was opined between 12 to 14 years in the report of the radiologist. In the present case no such reliance has been placed on the report of the radiologist. The authorities relied upon by the Ld. Defene Counsel for the accused, thus, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
37 Prosecution has relied upon the authority in the matter of "Umesh Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan" (1982) 2 SCC 2002 wherein it has been categorically held that entries in school register and admission form, maintained in the course of regular official duty and existing ante litem motam, are reliable under section 35 Evidence Act and constitute good proof of age. This authority is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(c) Consent -Value? 38 In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered
opinion that prosecution has proved on record beyond doubt that prosecution was below 16 years of age on the day of incident. Since the prosecution was below 16 years of age on the day of incident, her consent to accompany the accused or to have physical relation with him was no consent in the eyes of law. The prosecutrix being of State Vs Srikant 19 of26 20 immature age, was unable to understand the consequences of consent given by her to accompany the accused without informing her parents. The act of the prosecutrix to submit for sexual intercourse during her stay with the accused at his house shows her innocence which was exploited by the accused who was aged about 18 years on the day of incident. A girl studying in 10th class, going to attend her school and from there accompanying the accused on his motorcycle at a distant place and thereafter having physical relations with him, all show innocence and immaturity of the child below 16 years of age. Had the prosecutrix known the consequences of her acts, without having marriage with the accused as per law, she must not have submitted herself for physical relation with the accused. Hence consent of the prosecutrix was no consent in the eyes of law and is not enough to absolve the accused of his guilt/offence.
(d) Miscellaneous 39 FSL reports relied upon by the prosecution also
corroborate the version given by the prosecutrix regarding physical relation with the accused.
40 In the statement recorded u/s 313CrPC, the accused did not give any plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He also failed to justify kidnapping of the prosecutrix, a minor without the knowledge of her parents. He failed to State Vs Srikant 20 of26 21 justify establishment of physical relations with a minor even with her consent to satisfy his lust. The accused did not lead any worthwhile evidence in his defence to controvert the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
41 DW1 Smt Bimla did not bother to inform the parents of the prosecutrix when both the accused and the prosecutrix had come at her residence on 10.12.2009 at about 8 PM and had stayed there till 14.12.2009. She has also failed to state as to how she permitted both the accused and the prosecutrix to stay at her house without informing their parents. The testimony of this witness is of no helpful to the accused.
(e) Conclusion 42 In the light of the above discussion, I am of this view that
prosecution has proved on record beyond doubt that accused enticed the prosecutrix "X", aged below 16 years and took her with him out of the lawful guardianship of her parents and after taking her at his house at Ghaziabd had sexual intercourse with her when she was under 16 years and thereby the accused committed offences punishable u/s 363 and 376 IPC and is convicted accordingly for the said offences.
Announced in open court State Vs Srikant 21 of26 22 dated 16.8.2010 ( S.P.GARG ) DISTRICT JUDGEIV State Vs Srikant 22 of26 23
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.P.GARG, DISTRICT JUDGEIV, NEW DELHI ID No. 02403R0061982010 S.C.No. 29/2010 State Vs. Srikant @ Babu @ Rohit S/o Vikram Singh R/o 15/23, PartIInd, Indira Camp, Parpar Ganj, Delhi (Presently in JC) FIR No. 173/2009 U/S 363/376 IPC PS: Barakhamba Road ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1 I have heard the convict Srikant @ Babu @ Rohit on the point of sentence.
2 Convict has prayed to take lenient view as he has remained in J.C from the very inception. He is not a previous convict. He is only earning member of his family.
3 I have considered the prayer of the convict and have gone
State Vs Srikant 23 of26
24
through the file.
4 On perusal of the file, it reveals that the offence committed by
the convict is very serious and grave. Convict took the prosecutrix "X"
with him when she was below 16 years of age and was a student of10th class. On the day of incident the prosecutrix had gone on the pretext of attending her school. Convict was waiting for her to take the prosecutrix with him at his residence at Ghaziabad. He not only enticed the innocent child aged below 16 years to his residence, but also established physical relation with her there. Court can well understand the trauma of the parents and relatives of the prosecutrix whose minor daughter remained missing for number of days. Convict did not bother to inform the parents of the prosecutrix or his parents about the whereabouts of the prosecutrix. Convict who was working as driver and was major exploited innocence and immaturity of the prosecutrix and allured her to have physical relation with him without bothering its dire consequences in the society. On that score, the convict deserves no leniency.
State Vs Srikant 24 of26
25
5 Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case , I am
also of the view that there are sufficient and adequate reasons for not awarding minimum sentence of seven years prescribed u/s 376 IPC. Prosecutrix and convict were having affairs prior to the incident. Prosecutrix was a consenting party through out. The convict is not involved in any other criminal activity.
6 Considering all such circumstances, convict Srikant @ Babu @ Rohit is sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs. 2,000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 2 months for the commission of offence u/s 363 IPC.
7 Convict Srikant @ Babu @ Rohit is further sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine of Rs. 5,000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 5 months for the commission of offence u/s 376 IPC.
8 Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
9 The period already undergone by the convict in this case shall be State Vs Srikant 25 of26 26
counted and set off against the substantive sentence u/s 428 Cr.PC. 10 Copy of the judgment and other relevant documents be given free of cost to the convict.
11 File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court
on dated 18/8/2010
(S.P.GARG)
DJIV/ND
State Vs Srikant 26 of26