Delhi District Court
State vs Shrawan Kumar S/O Late Sohia, R/O B on 20 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : North East / KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0370342011
Sessions Case No. 64/2013
Assigned to Sessions. 18.08.2012
Arguments heard on 17.12.2013
Date of Judgment 20.12.2013
FIR No. 130/2011
State Vs Shrawan Kumar S/o Late Sohia, R/o B
5/349, Nand Nagari, Delhi.
Police Station Nand Nagari
Under Section 363/366A/342/354/323/506 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. The factual matrix of prosecution case is that on 13.04.2011 a DD No.21A was recorded at police station Nand Nagari regarding rape by a man at House No.B 5/399, Nand Nagari and same DD was assigned to SI Alok Kumar. On receipt of DD, SI Alok Kumar along with Ct. Sujan had reached at the spot i.e. H. No. B5/349, Nand Nagari and found a lot of persons, victim and her parents there. Victim had given her statement Ex.PW1/A to SI Alok Kumar and SI Alok Kumar had put his endorsement Ex.PW10/A on the same and got the present case registered vide FIR Ex.PW3/C. During the course of investigation police had arrested accused Shrawan Kumar and Station House Officer of Police Station Nand Nagari had filed a challan SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar vide FIR No.130/2011 dated 13.04.2011 u/s 323/354/506/363/342/366A IPC for the prosecution of accused Shrawan Kumar in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and section 207 Cr. P.C. had been complied with by Ld. M.M. Since, this court is designated court for trial of the cases pertaining to child victims, hence this case was sent by Ld. District Judge/Incharge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts to this court for trial by way of transfer.
CHARGE:
2. On the basis of material available on record, this court vide order dated 21.05.2013 framed the charges against accused Shrawan Kumar for the offence punishable u/s 363/366A/342/354/323/506 IPC to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 10 witnesses namely PW1 Smt. Rakesh mother of victim, PW2 Km. Monika - victim, PW3 SI Dalchand, PW4 Ct. Tejpal, PW5 Munesh, PW6 Sh. Mahender Singh, PW7 Dr. Sandeep Mittal, Junior Resident, LBS Hospital, PW8 W/Ct. Kavita, PW9 Ct. Sujan Singh and PW10 SI Alok Kumar.
4. PW1 Smt. Rakesh mother of victim is a material witness. This witness stated that the victim in this case is her daughter and she was 16 years old as on date. This witness stated that on 13.04.2011, she had asked the victim to bring sugar from a SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar shop nearby her house at about 8:30 p.m. After some time some children had come to her house and informed her that the victim was crying in a house situated near park and she rushed towards that house and knocked the door of the said house and called the victim by uttering her name. The victim did not speak despite her repeated knocking the door. After some time, door was opened and she had seen the victim and at that time she was very nervous and she said that she had sustained hurt in the backside of her head and at that time, the accused Shrawan was hiding himself behind the door of the house and she had taken out the accused from behind the door and she also slapped the accused.
5. This witness further stated that the victim had told her later that accused had threatened her that she would be killed and the victim had also told her that the accused had opened her pant. This witness further stated that the family members i.e. sons and grandsons of accused and other family member had beaten her husband and she had intervened and saved her husband otherwise they would have killed her husband and her also. Thereafter, police had come and the accused had fled away before reaching the police.
6. Ld. Addl. PP has drawn the attention of this witness at point A in the statement of victim Ex.PW1/A. On seeing the same witness submits that she had put her signatures on blank papers at the instance of police officials.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. In her cross examination SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar by Ld. APP for the State, her statement Ex.PW1/B was confronted with portion A to A.
8. This witness admits that she had identified the accused while he was sitting in a big park near State Bank, Bblock and told to police that the accused is the person who had committed wrong act with the victim. This witness had denied to the suggestion that police had recorded disclosure statement of accused in her presence or that police had prepared papers regarding arrest of accused in her presence.
9. At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP has drawn the attention of this witness towards her signatures at point A on documents Mark A and Mark B. Witness identifies her signature on documents Mark A but she refuses to identify her signature on document Mark B.
10.This witness admits that the victim used to study at Raja Ravi Verma Sarvodya Kanya Vidyalaya, BBlock, Nand Nagari. This witness had denied that he had intentionally resiled from her statement regarding the arrest and apprehending of accused by the police; or that he is deposing falsely in this regard.
11.This witness admits that the victim had told me that accused had dragged her inside the house and pushed her on a cot.
12.In her cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused, this stated SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar that the house of accused is situated at the walking distance of five seven minutes from her house and accused was not known to me earlier and the house in which accused had dragged the victim was constructed upto first floor. This witness stated that she can tell the names of persons who had entered the house of accused following her but no one would come to support the case. This witness stated that she has four children. This witness further stated that police officials from 100 number had come firstly at the spot and these police officials had remained at the spot for about 1530 minutes. This witness admits that her husband often used to consume liquor and her husband used to manage liquor from Theka and from local wine seller (Saansi).
13.This witness had denied to the suggestion that her husband used to play gambling occasionally or that accused was falsely implicated in this case or that she had approached the sons and grandsons of accused not to give liquor to her husband; or that on this issue there occurred a quarrel between her and them; or that for this reason accused had been falsely implicated.
14.PW2 Km. Monika is a material witness being victim. This witness stated that during the days of incident, she was studying in ninth standard in Raja Ravi Verma Sarvodya Kanya Vidyalaya, situated at the distance of 15 minutes from her house.
15.This witness stated that on 13.04.2013, at about 08:30pm, when she was going to bring sugar from a shop, one old man called her towards his house by saying 'Babu SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar Idhar Aao' and he caught hold of her right hand and dragged her inside his house and accused asked her to open a almirah and when she was trying to open the almirah accused bolted the door of room from inside. Thereafter, he asked her to open her pant and she raised alarm. This witness further stated that he pushed her on a cot and tried to open her pant forcibly and was putting his hands on her private parts and in the meantime, her mother came over there and her mother had knocked the door of the house and also called her by her name and when she was standing up to open the door accused pressed her mouth and threatened to kill her and he also hit her head with the wall.
16.This witness further stated that after opening the door neighbouring persons had come there and given beating to that person and accused, his sons and grandsons had also manhandling and beating with her parents and in the meantime, someone had called up the police and all the assailants ran away. This witness further stated that assailants were from Saansi community.
17.This witness had correctly identified the accused which was produced through video conferencing and on seeing the same witness states that this the same old man who had caught hold her hand and pushed on a cot inside the room.
18.This witness has proved his statement Ex.PW1/A. This witness has also proved her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/A running in three pages along with two applications Ex.PA and Ex.PB. This witness has also proved her MLC vide mark SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar 'X'.
19.This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. In her cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, this witness admits that more than two years have passed since the incident and inadvertently, she had stated date of incident as 13.04.2013. This witness admits that accused was arrested by the police on her instance.
20.In her cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma with Ms. Aarti Sharma and Amit Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused, this witness stated that house of accused is situated at the walking distance of five minutes from her house and accused was not known to me prior to this incident and there was darkness when she was going to bring the sugar, however, some children were playing there and those children were not known to her, however, they had informed her parents about the incident. This witness stated that she does not know as to how much floors were constructed in the house of accused and there were two rooms on the ground floor but she cannot tell the size of those rooms, however, accused had pushed her in one of aforesaid two rooms after pressing her mouth. This witness further stated that she is not sure about the colour of almirah lying inside the rooms, however, it might be of chocolate colour.
21.This witness further stated that she herself had opened the door and door was situated at the distance of twothree steps from the room in which accused had pushed her.
SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar
22.This witness had denied to the suggestion that signature at point B in statement Ex.PW1/A is not her. This witness further stated that there was bleeding due to hitting her head with the wall by the accused and police had not seized her clothes. This witness had denied to the suggestion that her father was liquor addict during the days of incident; or that he was a gambler; or accused has been falsely implicated because of the hot talks between her mother and sons and grandsons of accused on the issue as to why they used to provide liquor to her father. This witness had further denied to the suggestion that she is deposing falsely at the instance of her parents.
23.PW3 SI Dalchand is a formal witness being D.O. This witness stated that on 13.04.2011, he was working as duty officer at P.S. Nand Nagari from 05:00pm to 01:00am and on that day at about 08:40pm an intimation regarding rape was received at P.S. and he entered this information in DD No.21/A and this call was assigned to SI Alok Kumar. This witness has proved copy of the DD vide Ex.PW3/A.
24.This witness has also proved computer generated printout of FIR vide Ex.PW3/C which was registered on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Sujan Singh. This witness has proved his endorsement Ex.PW3/B on the rukka.
25.PW4 Ct. Tejpal. This is the witness of arrest of accused. This witness has proved arrest memo Ex.PW 4/A and personal search memo Ex.PW4/B of accused Shrawan SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar Kumar.
26.In his cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused, this witness stated that he had joined the investigation of this case after evening briefing but he cannot tell the exact time. This witness had denied to the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation of this case at any point of time; or that IO had obtained his signature on the memos at P.S.; or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
27.PW5 Munesh is the father of victim. This witness stated that victim is his daughter and on 13.04.2011, at about 08/08:30pm his wife had sent the victim to bring sugar from a nearby shop and the victim did not turn up. In the meanwhile, one boy had come and informed his wife that the victim was closed inside a room and she was raising alarm. This witness further stated that his wife had left the house and reached at the place regarding which the boy had informed and she knocked the door of the room and he was taking bath at that time. This witness further stated that after taking bath, she had also gone to that place i.e. the house of Shrawan, the accused present in the court, near his house and he had asked accused Shrawan "AAPKE PER KABAR MEIN LATKEIN HUE HAIN AUR AAPKO AISI GHINONI HARKAT NAHI KARNI CHAHIYE''. This witness further stated that at that time the grandsons of accused had grappled with him and his neighbours had also happened to cover over there and saved him. This witness further stated that he had received injuries during grappling and he had been medically examined at GTB Hospital vide MLC Mark X. SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar
28.This witness further stated that the victim had told her that the accused had bolted the room and threatened and asked the victim to remove her pant.
29.In his cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused, this witness stated that the Kiryana shop was situated at the distance of 5060 meters from his house and he was present at his home when the victim had left for taking sugar from kiryana shop and no elder children were present at the house at that time. This witness further stated that accused is known to him for last 1015 years.
30.This witness stated that his statement was not recorded by the police in the present case and he cannot tell the name of the neighbour who had saved him and he know the grandsons and other family members of the accused that they were engaged in the selling of liquor. This witness further stated that there was no dispute between him and the family members of the accused and he had not made any complaint to any authority regarding selling of liquor by the accused and he used to consume liquor 10 years back.
31.This witness had denied to the suggestion that he used to consume liquor during the days of present incident also; or that his family members were annoyed with him due to aforesaid reason; or that on this issue there occurred a quarrel between his wife and the family of accused. This witness had denied to the suggestion that he is deposing falsely; or that nothing had happened with the victim; or that accused was SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar falsely implicated in this case.
32.PW6 Sh. Mahender Singh, Lab Assistant, Raja Ravi Verma Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhyala, BBlock, Nand Nagari, Delhi94. This witness has brought admission and withdrawal register in respect of admission number 633 dated 27.04.2002 on the direction of Principal of their school and entry against this admission number was made pertains to student who is victim in this case and as per our record, her date of birth is 13.08.1998. This witness has proved the certificate issued by their Principal Smt. Sneh Prabhat Sachdeva vide Ex.PW6/A. This witness has proved photocopy of admission register vide Ex.PW6/B.
33.In her cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused, this witness stated that he has no personal knowledge about the record produced by him today and he has not brought any authority letter.
34.PW7 Dr. Sandeep Mittal, Junior Resident, LBS Hospital, New Delhi. This witness stated that on 14.04.2011, he was posted at GTB Hospital as a Junior Resident and on that day, he had examined Sh. Manish, aged about 36 years and after examination, he found abrasions 2 x 2 cm on left elbow and small ill defined bruise left side of right clavicle. This witness has proved MLC vide Ex.PW7/A. This witness further stated that the patient was further referred to Ortho. department and surgery for further management.
SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar
35.This witness further stated that on that date, he had also examined Monica, female, 14 years and the MLC of Monica vide Ex.PW7/B and on local examination, no external injury found and the patient referred to Gyane. Department for further management.
36.In his cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused, this witness stated that he cannot tell how much time patient Monica remained with him in the hospital during her examination and a female staff was with her when he was examining the victim but he cannot tell the name of that female staff.
37.PW8 W/Ct. Kavita. This witness stated that on 13.04.2011, he was posted with P.S. Nand Nagari and he was on duty from 08:00am to 04:00pm. This witness further stated that IO/SI Alok had called her at the spot and she reached there and at the instructions of the IO, she had got the victim in this case medically examined at GTB Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW7/B.
38.In her cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused, this witness stated that she had not made any DD entry regarding her departure from P.S. and arrival at P.S. This witness had denied to the suggestion that she had not joined the investigation of this case at any point of time; or that she am deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
39.PW9 Ct. Sujan Singh. This witness stated that on 13.04.2011, he was posted with SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar P.S. Nand Nagari and on that day he was on night emergency duty from 08:00pm to 08:00am and at about 08:30pm, he had accompanied the IO/SI Alok to B block, Nand Nagari and there at the spot, the victim in this case had met and had given her statement to IO. This witness further stated that after recording the statement of the victim, IO had given him a rukka for registration of case and he had got the case registered at P.S. and had come back to the spot and the accused wanted in this case was searched but he was not found.
40.In his cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused, this witness had denied to the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation of this case at any point of time; or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
41.PW10 SI Alok Kumar is a material witness being I.O. of the present case. This witness stated that on 13.04.2011, he was posted with P.S. Nand Nagari and he was present at P.S. on night emergency duty and at about 08:40pm, a PCR call vide DD No.21A was received in the P.S. and the same was assigned to him and thereupon, he along with Ct. Sujan had gone to the spot. This witness further stated that there were a lot of public persons and the victim in this case, her mother Smt. Rakesh and her father Sh. Munesh were also there and the victim had given her statement which was recorded through Ct. Sujan vide Ex.PW1/A. This witness had put his endorsement Ex.PW10/A on this statement and gave it to Ct. Sujan for the registration of this case and also requested to send a lady constable at the spot. This witness had conducted inquiry at the spot but no public person had come forward to SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar give their statement.
42.This witness further stated that after about 4050 minutes Ct. Sujan had come at the spot along with lady Ct. Kavita and handed over to him the original rukka and copy of FIR vide Ex.PW3/C. This witness had got the victim medically examined through lady Ct. Kavita at GTB Hospital. This witness had examined and recorded the statements of the parents of victim u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and he had called public person namely Dharmender at P.S. and from him he had made inquiry from him pertaining to this case.
43.During the course of investigation, this witness had arrested accused on pointing out of victim vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW3/B. This witness had also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW10/B.
44.During the course of investigation, on 15.04.2011, this witness had got the statement of victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide his application Ex.PA and obtained the copy of the statement vide his application Ex.PB. This witness has proved statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C vide Ex.PW2/A.
45.During the course of investigation, this witness had also collected documents regarding the age of the victim from her school and certificate regarding age of the victim vide Ex.PW6/A. SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar
46.In his cross examination by Sh. K.N. Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused, this witness stated that he had not made any PCR official witness in this case and he had also not collected any record regarding the information on PCR and no telephone number is mentioned in DD No.21/A and he had reached the spot within 1015 minutes. This witness stated that he had not taken any lady constable from P.S. even after the information regarding rape because he wanted to reach the spot soon and when he reached the spot there were about 80100 persons.
47.This witness stated that he had not taken or call the victim and her mother to P.S. at any point of time and he had inquired from the neighbourhood of the accused about the incident but no public persons came forward to make their statements.
48.This witness had denied to the suggestion that accused was suffering with paralysis at the time of his arrest. This witness admits that accused belongs to Saanshi caste and heI cannot say if the accused and his family members were involved in selling of unauthorized liquor during the days of incident. This witness had denied that father of victim had been addict of alcohol or he was a gambler during the days of incident.
49.This witness had denied to the suggestion that no such incident had occurred; or that accused had been implicated in this case because father of victim had been visiting at the house of accused for liquor and gambling; or that he had never visited the spot; or that due to this reason he had not prepared the site plan of the house of accused; or that he has not conducted investigation of this case fairly and properly; or that he is SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar deposing falsely.
STATMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
50.After prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded where accused Shrawan Kumar had denied all allegations, evidence and circumstances put to him. In statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused Shrawan Kumar deposed that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Accused further deposed that the father of the victim used to consume liquor with his sons and grandsons and the mother of alleged victim used to object to it and on this issue there occurred a quarrel between them and therefore, the mother of the victim had falsely implicated him in the present case after tutoring the victim to give particular statement before the police. Accused has not preferred to lead any D.E.
51.Thereafter, case was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
52.Ld. APP for State argued that there is charge against the accused Shrawan Kumar for the offence u/s 363/366A/342/354/323/506 IPC.
53.Ld. APP for the State further argued that from the testimony of PW1, 2, 5 and also that of PW10 the case of prosecution has been proved and nothing had come in their respective cross examination which may create any doubt in the case of prosecution. SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar
54.Ld. APP for State submits that victim was taken by the accused without the consent of the guardian of victim with the intention that she may be forced or seduced to have illicit intercourse with him. Accused had confined the victim and had used criminal force on the victim with intention to outrage her modesty and also caused hurt to her and also extended threat to her that she would be killed if she raised alarm.
55.Ld. APP for the State submitted that despite being an elderly man the accused had sexually assaulted the victim, a minor aged about 14 years and victim had testified this fact in her testimony. Hence, statement of victim before the court is sufficient to convict the accused for offence charged as prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
56.Per contra, Ld. counsel for accused had inter alia submitted that the accused had been falsely implicated in this case due to quarrel on the issue of consumption of liquor by the father of the victim.
57.It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimony of victim and her mother and these contradictions create a reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution. Even otherwise it was not possible for a man of 75 years to commit offence like this.
58.Ld. counsel further submitted that the mother of victim also not supporting the case SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar of prosecution on investigation conducted by the I.O. regarding arrest of accused on 14.02.2011.
59.Ld. counsel further submitted that PW1 and PW2 states that they had signed on the documents without going through the contents. On these grounds, ld. counsel for accused has prayed for acquittal of accused from the charges. PERUSAL OF RECORD:
60.Arguments heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that on 13.04.2011, PW SI Alok Kumar was assigned a call vide DD No.21A, Ex.PW3/A regarding the rape and thereupon he alongwith Ct. Sujan had gone to spot i.e. House No.B5/349, Nand Nagari and found a lot of persons, victim and her parents there.
61.It is further revealed that the victim had given her statement Ex.PW1/A and the same was recorded by SI Alok Kumar and he had put his endorsement Ex.PW10/A on aforesaid statement and got the present case registered vide FIR Ex.PW3/C.
62.It is further revealed that SI Alok Kumar had got the victim medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW7/B.
63.It is further revealed that the father of the victim was also got medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW7/A. SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar
64.It is further revealed that on 14.04.2011 accused was apprehended on the identification of the victim from Cblock, Nand Nagari Park and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B and he had made a disclosure statement Ex.PW10/B.
65.It is further revealed that on 15.04.2011 the victim had made her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW2/A before Ld. MM, Ms. Bhawani Sharma.
66.It is further revealed that PW6, Mahender Singh, Lab Assistant, Raja Ravi Verma Sarvodya Kanya Vidyalya, had produced the admission and withdrawal register of the school record regarding the admission of the victim and as per the record Ex.PW6/B the date of birth of the victim is 13.08.1998 and on the basis of this record the principal had issued a certificate Ex.PW6/A regarding the date of birth of the victim.
67.Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections i.e. 363/366 A/342/354/323/506 IPC be reproduced, which are as under : Section 363 IPC: "Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 366A IPC:
Procuration of minor girl. Whoever, by any means whatsoever, SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen year to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be punished with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 342 IPC:
Punishment for wrongful confinement. Whoever wrongfully confines any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 354 IPC:
"Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both."
Section 323 IPC :
"Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Section 506 IPC:
Punishment criminal intimidation - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both, if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.SC No.64/2013
State v. Shrawan Kumar
68.Present case was registered on the complaint of victim who has examined as PW2. In her testimony before this court, this witness has stated that on 13.04.2013, at about 08:30pm, when she was going to bring sugar from a shop, one oldman called her towards his house by saying 'Babu Idhar Aao' and he caught hold of her right hand and dragged her inside his house. Accused asked her to open a almirah and when she was trying to open the almirah accused bolted the door of room from inside. Thereafter, he asked her to open her pant and she raised alarm. He pushed her on a cot and tried to open her pant forcibly and was putting his hands on her private parts. In the meantime, her mother came over there and her mother had knocked the door of the house and also called her by her name. When she was standing up to open the door accused pressed her mouth and threatened to kill her. He also hit her head with the wall. After opening the door neighbouring persons had come there and given beating to that person.
69.On the same footing PW1 and PW5 have deposed on the same footing corroborating the testimony of victim. Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. has claimed that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The father of the victim used to consume liquor with my sons and grandsons. The mother of alleged victim used to object to it and on this issue there occurred a quarrel between them and therefore the mother of the victim had falsely implicated me in the present case after tutoring the victim to give a particular statement before the police.
70.Since it is the case of prosecution that accused had dragged victim into his house SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar with intention to illicit intercourse with another person and that accused had confined the victim illegally in his room and outraged her modesty and also given beating and threatened the victim. On this fact all PWs have supported the case of prosecution and it is the defence who could not bring sufficient material on record dispute the victim and other material PWs.
71.In these circumstances, this court is of the view that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused for offences punishable u/s 363/342/354/506 IPC. Accordingly, this court held guilt accused Shrawan Kumar for the offences punishable u/s 363/342/354/506 IPC.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20.12.2013.
(RAMESH KUMARII) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01/NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 0I : NORTH EAST / KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 130/2011
State Vs Shrawan Kumar S/o Late Sohia, R/o B
5/349, Nand Nagari, Delhi.
Police Station Nand Nagari
Convicted under Section 363/342/354/506 IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
20.12.2013
Pre: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Shrawan on bail.
Sh. K.N. Sharma, Ld. counsel for convict.
Arguments heard on point of sentence. Ld. APP for the State submits that since prosecution has proved its case against convict 363/342/354/506 IPC. He further submits that convict be awarded severe punishment as he had committed a heinous crime against a minor child. Hence, he has prayed for maximum sentence to the convict.
On the other hand, ld. counsel for accused for convict has prayed that convict is a senior citizen and he is 75 years old and is facing trial regularly. Ld. counsel for convict further submits that convict Shrawan Kumar has been remained in JC for one month and four days and stated that convict belongs to a poor family and he is having responsibility of his family. Ld. counsel for convict has requested for lenient view and SC No.64/2013 State v. Shrawan Kumar requested to release the convict for a period already undergone.
After considering the fact and circumstances of the present case, perusal of case and considering the age of convict aged about 75 years and being senior citizen and he has been remained in JC for one month and four days and having responsibility of his family, this court comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice will meet if convict Shrawan Kumar is sentenced to a period already undergone for offences u/s 363/342/354/506 IPC and fine of Rs.200/ in default convict shall undergo S.I for one month. Fine of Rs.200/ was deposited in D.L.S.A. Accordingly, convict is released on undergone for the offence u/s 363/342/354/506 IPC. In terms of section 437 A Cr. P.C., convict is hereby directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Orders accordingly.
Copies of the judgment along with sentence order be given to the convict forthwith free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON THIS 20.12.2013 (RAMESH KUMARII)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE01/NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SC No.64/2013
State v. Shrawan Kumar