Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. on 25 September, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST)-04, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 85/08)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0669192008
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr.
FIR No. : 85/2008
U/s : 363/365/376 (2) (g)/34 IPC
P.S : Swaroop Nagar
State Vs. 1. Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan
R/o H.No. -78, Village Nangli Poona
Delhi
2. Naresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Jagmer Singh
R/o Village Hamid Pur,
P.O-Alipur
Delhi
Date of institution of case-03.07.2008
Date on which, judgment have been reserved-07.09.2010
Date of pronouncement of judgment-22.09.2010
S.C No. 85/08 1/31
2
JUDGEMENT
In the present case on 24.4.2008 on receipt of DD No. 25A at P.S. Swaroop Nagar, HC Ranbir Singh alongwith Ct. Nand Kishore reached the spot i.e Hanuman Mandir , Nangli Poona, where the prosecutrix and her parents met them and the prosecutrix got recorded her statement ( Ex. PW-1/A), wherein she stated that on that day, she alongwith her parents had come to Hanuman Mandir Nangli Poona from Mehandipur Balaji, Mandir ( Rajasthan) and after leaving her at the road alongwith articles, her parents had gone to Hanuman Mandir and after some time, a white colour car came there in which two boys were sitting and one of those boys opened the door of the car and dragged her in the car and after some distance that boy got down from car and the other boy who was present in the car stopped the car after some distance and did Galat Kaam with her on the rear seat of the car and thereafter he left her at the spot from where she was kidnapped. Prosecutrix further stated that she narrated the entire incident to her father, who made a call to the police and accordingly police reached at the spot. Thereafter prosecutrix alongwith her parents and police went towards the side in which car has gone and they saw that both boys were present there and on interrogation, those boys disclosed their names as Sanjeev and Naresh and the prosecutrix stated that legal action may be taken against them .
On the basis of the aforesaid statement (Ex. PW-1/A) of the prosecutrix, HC Ranbir Singh prepared a rukka (Ex. PW-9/A) and sent the same through Ct. Nand Kishore to P.S, which resulted in the registration of the present case vide FIR No.85/08 at PS Swaroop Nagar and further investigation of this case was entrusted to W/SI Rajesh Sharma.
During investigation, IO prepared the site plan , arrested the accused S.C No. 85/08 2/31 3 persons and also got the prosecutrix and accused persons medically examined at BJRM Hospital. Thereafter statement of the prosecutrix u/s- 164 Cr.PC was also got recorded. During investigation, ossification test was also got conducted upon the prosecutrix for the determination of her bony age and the exhibits of the case were also sent to FSL Rohini Delhi. After completion of the investigation, charge- sheet was prepared and filed before the court of concerned Ld. MM.
2. After committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, charge for committing the offences punishable u/s- 363/34 IPC, u/s- 365/34 IPC & u/s- 376 (2) (g) IPC was framed against both the accused- Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 20 witnesses i.e PW-1 to PW-20.
PW-1 is the prosecutrix and prosecution is mainly relying upon her testimony to prove its case on record.
PW-2 Mano is the mother of the prosecutrix and the prosecution is also relying upon her testimony to prove its case on record.
PW-3 Manmohan is the registered owner of the vehicle i.e Maruti Zen White Colour Car bearing No. DL8CD-4119 and he deposed that on 24.4.2008 at about 10:00 A.M , the said vehicle was taken from him by accused Sanjeev for the purpose of family outing. PW-3 has proved the aforesaid vehicle as Ex. P-2.
S.C No. 85/08 3/31 4PW-4 Dr. Manju Bansal deposed that prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Suresh and Dr. Pooja vide MLC No. 382 dated 24.4.2008.
PW-5 Dr.Pooja medically examined the prosecutrix on 24.4.2008 vide MLC Ex. PW-5/A. PW-6 Sh. Amit Bansal Ld. ACMM was posted as M.M. Rohini Court on 25.4.2008 and on that day, he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix u/s- 164 Cr.PC and he has proved the said statement as Ex. PW-6/D and his certificate regarding the correctness of statement as Ex. PW-6/E. PW-7 HC Mahinder Singh was working as Duty Officer at P.S Swaroop Nagar on 24.4.2008 and he has proved the copy of DD No. 25A dated 24.4..2008 recorded by him as Ex. PW-7/A. On the same day, PW-7 has also recorded the FIR No. 85/08 of this case and he has proved the carbon copy of the FIR as Ex. PW-7/B and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW-7/C. PW-8 Dr. Neeraj Choudhary has proved the MLC No. 385 & 384 of accused Naresh & Sanjeev prepared by Dr. Suresh and Dr. Yusuf as Ex. PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B and opined that as per the said MLC, there was nothing to suggest that said accused persons were incapable to perform sexual intercourse.
PW-9 HC Ranbir Singh alongwith Ct. Nand Kishore reached the spot on 24.04.2008, on receiving the message from D.O regarding lifting of a girl in a Maruti Zen Car and at the spot, they met PCR Officials and prosecutrix and made S.C No. 85/08 4/31 5 inquiries from them. PW-9 further deposed that he recorded the statement of prosecutrix ( Ex. PW-1/A ) and prepared the rukka ( Ex. PW-9/A ) and the same was handed over to Ct. Nand Kishore for registration of the case with the request that after registration of the FIR, further investigation be handed over to some other lady police officer and accordingly investigation was handed over to W/SI Rajesh, who alongwith W/Ct. Saroj and Ct. Nand Kishore and SHO reached at the spot where on his pointing out, IO prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-9/B) and seized the car DL8CD-4119 vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-9/C and accused Naresh Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar were arrested vide memos Ex PW-1/B & Ex. PW-1/C and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-9/D & Ex. PW-9/E and thereafter both the accused were taken to hospital for their medical examination. PW-9 has also proved the search memo qua car no. DL 8CD-4119 as Ex. PW-9/F and pointing out memo of the place of occurrence prepared at the instance of accused Sanjeev as Ex. PW-9/G. PW-10 Ms. Shashi Bala Sr. Scientific Asstt.( Biology) examined the exhibits in this case and she has proved the detailed biological report in this regard as Ex. PW-10/A and serology report as Ex. PW-10/B. PW-11 HC Nareshpal Singh was working as MHC (M) at P.S:
Swaroop Nagar on 30.05.2008 and on that day, on the instruction of the IO he sent the exhibits of this case to FSL through Ct. Surender vide RC No. 11/21/08 and he has proved entry in register no. 19 and aforesaid RC as Ex. PW-11/A and Ex PW-11/B. S.C No. 85/08 5/31 6 PW-12 W/Ct. Saroj joined the investigation in this case on 24.4.2008 and took the prosecutrix for her medical examination to BJRM Hospital, where after medical examination of prosecutrix, doctor handed over two pullandas and a sample seal to her, which were taken in to possession vide memo Ex. PW-12/A. PW-13 Insp Daya Nand was working as SHO, P.S: Swaroop Nagar on 24.4.2008 and on that day, he inspected the car in question i.e Maruti Zen no. DL 8CD-4119 (Ex.P-2) and deposed that said vehicle was taken in to possession vide memo Ex. PW-9/F. PW-14 Ct. Om Prakash took the exhibits of this case to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 11/21/08 on 30.8.2008.
PW-15 Ct. Abhimanyu joined the investigation in this case on 25.4.2008 and took the accused Sanjeev to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination and after medical examination, doctor handed over one sealed pullanda and sample seal which were taken in to possession vide memo Ex. PW-15/A. PW-16 Ct. Lokender joined the investigation in this case on 25.4.2008 and took the accused Naresh to BJRM Hospital for his medical examination and after medical examination, doctor handed over three sealed pullandas and sample seal, which were taken in to possession vide memo Ex. PW-16/A. PW-17 Ct. Nand Kishore went to the spot alongwith PW-9 HC Ranbir and his testimony is almost on the similar lines as that of PW-9 HC Ranbir S.C No. 85/08 6/31 7 Singh.
PW-18 W/SI Suman deposed that on 09.5.2008, the present case was handed over to her for further investigation and she collected the bone age X-ray report of the prosecutrix and examined PW- Man Mohan owner of the car no. DL8CD-4119. PW-18 further deposed that on 30.5.2009, the exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. Om Prakash and after completion of the investigation, challan was prepared and was presented in the court.
PW-19W/SI Rajesh is main IO of this case and she reached at P.S Swaroop Nagar after receiving the telephonic call from the DO and from there she went to the spot near Nangli-Poona alongwith W/Ct. Saroj, where she met HC Ranbir, prosecutrix and her parents. She further deposed that HC Ranbir had already sent Ct. Nand Kishore to PS with rukka for registration of FIR and accordingly the said Constable came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and the same were handed over to her for further investigation. PW-19 deposed that accused-Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar were already apprehended by HC Ranbir and Ct. Nand Kishore and accordingly they were arrested vide memos Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex. PW-9/D and Ex.PW-9/E and they also made disclosure statements vide Ex. PW-9/G and Ex. PW-9/H and accused Sanjeev pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PW-9/J. PW-19 further deposed that thereafter on the pointing out of the prosecutrix, she prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-9/B) and sent the prosecutrix alongwith her parents to BJRM Hospital for medical examination and accused were also sent to the same hospital for their medical S.C No. 85/08 7/31 8 examination. She also deposed that after medical examination of the prosecutrix, Ct. Saroj handed-over to her MLC and two pullandas and one sample seal which were taken in to possession vide memo Ex. PW-12/A. PW-19 deposed that Ct. Lokender handed over the MLC of accused Naresh and three pullandas and one sample seal and Ct. Abhimanyu handed over the MLC of accused Sanjeev alongwith three pullandas and sample seal which were taken in to possession vide memo Ex. PW-16/A and Ex.PW-15/A respectively. PW-19 further deposed that SHO: P.S Swaroop Nagar inspected the vehicle No. DL8CD-4119 vide memo Ex. PW-9/F and the said vehicle was taken in to possession vide memo Ex. PW-9/C. She also deposed that during investigation, she moved an application (Ex. PW-6/B) for recording the statement of prosecutrix u/s- 164 Cr.PC and accordingly the said statement (Ex.PW-6/D) was recorded and she received the copy of the statement. PW-19 deposed that thereafter she had gone for medical rest and case file was deposited with MHC(R). PW-19 has also proved the car seized on the day of the incident as Ex.P-2.
PW-20 Dr. Shipra Rampal examined the X-ray plates of prosecutrix and opined estimated bone age of prosecutrix to be between 12-14 years . PW-20 has also proved her detailed report in this regard as Ex. PW-20/A and aforesaid X-ray plates as Ex. P X ( colly.).
4. After recording of prosecution evidence, statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons which they denied as incorrect, Both the accused claimed to be innocent and accused Naresh stated that he does not want to lead any evidence in S.C No. 85/08 8/31 9 his defence, however accused-Sanjeev stated that he want to lead evidence in his defence.
5. In his defence evidence, accused-Sanjeev has examined three witnesses i.e DW-1 to DW-3.
6. I have heard the arguments at length put forward by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. defence counsels for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
7. It has been submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that in view of the testimony of PW-1 (prosecutrix) and her mother i.e. PW-3, prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that in view of the evidence adduced on record, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that on the day of incident, both the accused-Sanjeev and Naresh in furtherance of their common intention, kidnapped the prosecutrix aged about 12 years from out of the keeping of her parents and without the consent of her parents with intention to secretly & wrongfully confine her and to commit rape upon her and thereafter accused Sanjeev committed rape upon the prosecutrix in a moving car against her wishes and without her consent, while his co-accused Naresh was driving the said car. Ld. Addl. PP for the State also submitted that in view of the evidence and material on record, the prosecution has been successful in proving on record the guilt of accused persons and he prayed that both the accused-Sanjeev & Naresh may be convicted of the charged offences.
S.C No. 85/08 9/31 10On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Sanjeev that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the said accused. It is submitted that the prosecution is mainly relying upon the testimony of PW-1 ( prosecutrix ) but she is not a trustworthy witness as she has made different and contradictory statements before the police, before the Ld. MM as well as during her evidence in the court and as such her sole testimony can not form the basis for recording the conviction against the accused. It is also submitted that accused Sanjeev was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Ld. defence counsel submitted that accused- Sanjeev has nothing to do with the offences alleged in the present case and the present false case has been got registered against him by the family members of the prosecutrix in connivance with the police to extort money from him. It is further submitted that the allegations of similar nature were also leveled by the prosecutrix against her father and on the basis of the said allegations, only a case u/s 354 IPC was registered against the father of the prosecutrix vide FIR No. 66/2009 at PS Bhalswa Dairy, whereas in the instant case, almost the similar allegations have been made by the prosecutrix against the accused, but instead of registering the case u/s 354 IPC, the present case has been registered against the accused u/s 376 IPC. It is submitted that as per MLC, there was no injury on the private parts or on the person of prosecutrix and absence of the injuries implies that no such incident as narrated by the prosecutrix ever took place and had that been the case, the prosecutrix must have suffered injuries on her person as well as on her private parts and in the absence of corroborating medical evidence, no reliance should be placed on improved statement of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that no injury was found on the private parts or on the person of accused Sanjeev which again nullifies the version of the alleged incident given by S.C No. 85/08 10/31 11 the prosecutrix. Ld. defence counsel also submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and he prayed that accused Sanjeev may be acquitted of the charged offences.
In support of his contentions, Ld. defence counsel for accused persons has relied upon the case law cited as 1994 Crl. LJ 1216 (SC), 2003 Cr. LJ 268, AIR 1973 SC 343, 37 (1989) DLT 35, 1995 JCC 470, 36 ( 1988 ) DLT 8, 31 (1987) DLT 60, AIR 1979 SC 1408, AIR 1992 SC 1247, AIR ( 29 ) 1942 Bombay 121, AIR 1997 SC 454, AIR 1976 SC 975, AIR 1998 SCC (Crl.) 892, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 289, 1985 Cr. LJ 1773, 1991 (1) Delhi Lawyer 17 and 2002 (1) JCC 385.
Further, Ld. defence counsel for accused Naresh submitted that prosecution is mainly relying upon the testimony of the prosecutrix i.e. PW-1, however there were various inconsistencies and improvements in the statement of the prosecutrix and as such she is not a reliable or creditable witness and her sole testimony was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused on record beyond the reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that prosecutrix has made material improvements in her testimony as in her statement (Ex. PW-1/A) recorded by the police, she stated that the accused-Naresh left the car after some distance and another accused Sanjeev committed 'Galat Kaam' with her on the rear seat of the car, whereas in her evidence in the court she stated that accused Naresh was driving the car continuously, while accused Sanjeev committed rape upon her. It is also submitted that prosecutrix has alleged that she was dragged inside the car by accused Naresh after opening the left side door of the car, however the said averment made by the prosecutrix is not believable as it is not humanly possible for S.C No. 85/08 11/31 12 a person to drag any individual from outside the car, while sitting on the driving seat of the car. It is also submitted that prosecutrix is not a reliable witness as she has given different versions of the incident in her statement recorded by the police, in her statement u/s- 164 Cr. PC recorded before the Ld. MM and in her evidence recorded before this court and all these different and inconsistent versions show that she did not tell the true facts to the investigating agency or to the court and as such her statement cannot be relied upon for recording the conviction against the accused persons. It is submitted that in the instant case, prosecutrix was not knowing the accused persons prior to the incident and as such it was necessary for the prosecution to get the T.I.P. conducted qua the accused to get them identified from the prosecutrix, however the prosecution failed to do so and the said fact is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was medically examined within 3 ½ hours of the alleged incident and her vaginal swabs were prepared by PW-5, however no semen were found in the said vaginal swab as is evident from the FSL report Ex. PW-10/A and Ex. PW-10/B, which implies that no rape was committed upon the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that accused Naresh was not present at the time of incident and that fact is evident from the statement of the prosecutrix herself as in her examination-in-chief, she specifically stated that accused Naresh was not present in the car or nearby car, when co-accused Sanjeev was arrested by the police and similarly in her statement u/s 164 Cr. PC, she stated that one hefty man was arrested near the car and in her cross examination, she again stated that only one person was arrested by the police near the car, which implies that accused Naresh was not involved in the incident as has been alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that no case of gang rape was made out against accused Naresh as the prosecution has not been able to S.C No. 85/08 12/31 13 prove his presence at the spot at the time of alleged incident of rape and even in her statement recorded by the police, prosecutrix has specifically stated that accused Naresh alighted from the car and went away and it has also come on record that at the time of incident, accused Naresh was not present in the car or nearby the car and there is no allegation against him that he was guarding the spot of incident or keeping watch. It is also submitted that prosecutrix categorically stated that alleged 'Galat Kaam' was committed with her by accused Sanjeev in the car when it was in parked position and no allegation whatsoever regarding the presence or participation has been made against accused Naresh by her. Ld. defence counsel also submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused Naresh on record and he prayed that accused Naresh may be acquitted of the charged offences.
In support of his contentions, Ld. Defence counsel for accused Naresh has relied upon the case law cited as (2007) 3 SCC (Crl.) 159, (2000) 1 SCC 247, (1999) 8 SCC 428, 2006 (3) JCC 1347, 2010 (1) Crime 580, (2009) 1 SCC (Crl.) 17, 2004 (1) JCC 409, 2008 Crl. L.J 721, (2008) 2 SCC (Crl.) 207, (2007) 3 SCC (Crl.) 159, AIR 1960 SC 490 and AIR 1972 SC 468.
In rebuttal, it has been submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that the case law relied upon by the Ld. defence counsels is not applicable in the present case as the fact and circumstances of the present case were different from the fact and circumstances of cases discussed therein. It is further submitted that PW-1 (prosecutrix) is a trustworthy witness and she has supported the case of the prosecution and her testimony should not be discarded only on account of some minor discrepancies therein. Ld. Addl. PP also submitted that in view of the S.C No. 85/08 13/31 14 evidence and material on record, prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt against the accused persons and he again prayed that both the accused may be convicted of the charged offences.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. defence counsels for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case and by the accused-Sanjeev in his defence. I have also carefully perused the written submissions filed on behalf of accused Naresh and the case-law relied upon by the Ld. defence counsels for both the accused.
9. In the present case, accused Sanjeev and Naresh have been charged for committing the offences punishable u/s- 363/34, u/s- 365/34 IPC and u/s 376 2 (g) IPC.
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 24.4.2008 at about 1:00 P.M. at service road, in front of Mohan Villa Banquet Hall,Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Swaroop Nagar, accused Sanjeev and Naresh in furtherance of their common intention, kidnapped the prosecutrix, a minor girl aged about 12 years from out of the keeping of her parents without the consent of her parents with intention to secretly or wrongfully confine her and to commit rape upon her. It is also stated that thereafter in furtherance of their common intention, accused Sanjeev committed rape upon the prosecutrix against her wishes and without her consent in a moving car, while accused Naresh was driving the said car and after committing rape, both the accused persons left the prosecutrix at some distance from the place S.C No. 85/08 14/31 15 from where she was kidnapped.
10. In the present case, the prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimonies of PW-1 ( prosecutrix) and her mother (PW-2) to prove its case on record.
In her examination in chief, PW-1 deposed that about 4-5 months ago exact date and month, she did not remember, in the afternoon, she alongwith her father, mother, two brothers and two sisters came from Rajasthan and reached Nanglipuna near Hanuman mandir and they sat there and thereafter her father went inside the Hunuman mandir for prayer alone and she was sitting near school situated at a distance of about 10-12 fts from from the Hunuman temple alongwith her family members except her father and in the meantime, a Maruti Zen car of white colour stopped near her and the person who was driving the said car suddenly opened the front door of the left side of the driver seat and the driver of the said car dragged her inside the car. She further deposed that other person, who was stockily built (mota), was sitting in the rear/back seat of the said car and thereafter they took her towards the jungle side and then Motawala person whose name she came to know later on as Sanjeev did 'Galat Kaam' with her on the rear seat of the said car and the driver was continuously driving the car during that period and she correctly pointed out towards the accused Sanjeev Kumar present in the court to be the same person who did 'Galat Kaam' with her. PW-1 deposed that accused Sanjeev Kumar removed his pent and underwear and he also removed her salwar and he took out his penis and put the same inside her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly and against her consent. She further deposed that person who was driving the car put his hand on her mouth when he dragged her inside the car and the said S.C No. 85/08 15/31 16 person who was driving the car during the above period was accused Naresh, who also dragged her inside the car. She also deposed that rape was committed upon her in the moving car and the accused Naresh Kumar was driving the car at that time. PW-1 stated that after committing rape, she was left by the accused persons in the jungle and she again said that she was left at some distance from the place from where she was abducted and thereafter she came back to the place where their belongings were lying and her other family members were sitting at that time and she told the above facts to her father and he informed the police on telephone and police reached at the spot and she pointed out the police towards the gali towards which she was taken by the accused persons at the time of the incident and thereafter police took them towards that gali and they found the aforesaid car parked in that gali and accused Sanjeev was found present in the said car at that time and he was apprehended by the police alongwith the said car. PW-1 also stated that accused Naresh Kumar was not present in the said car or near the car at that time and her statement was recorded by the police which was Ex.PW-1/A. She further deposed that she was taken to hospital situated in Jahangir Puri, where she was medically examined and her Salwar which she was wearing at the time of incident was sealed by the doctor at the time of her medical examination and her statement was also recorded by the Ld. MM in Rohini Courts. PW-1 deposed that both the accused present in the court were arrested by the police in her presence from the gali near Nangli Puna, Delhi while they were standing near the said car mentioned above and the arrest memos of accused Naresh and Sanjeev were Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C. PW-1 also identified her Salwar which she was wearing at the time of incident and the car bearing No. DL 8CD 4119 Maruti Zen of white colour in which she was raped as Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 respectively.
S.C No. 85/08 16/31 17PW-2 Mano is the mother of the prosecutrix and she deposed that she do not remember the date and month, however it was about one year ago, she alongwith her family members had come to Delhi after visiting Balaji temple and reached near Nangli-poona, where they kept their luggage near a school and left their children there and she alongwith her husband went to Hanuman temple and when they came back from the said temple, they found that only their luggage was lying there and prosecutrix was missing. She further deposed that she inquired about prosecutrix from the students and teachers of the nearby school and they informed her that prosecutrix was sitting there sometime ago and now they were not aware about her whereabouts. PW-2 deposed that they tried to trace prosecutrix but she could not be found and they again went to the Baba in Hanuman Mandir, who told them to wait for sometime and after sometime, they saw prosecutrix coming from the side opposite to the school and she was weeping and was in a bad shape and she and her husband inquired from prosecutrix and she informed them that while she was sitting near the luggage, two persons came in a white car and dragged her inside the said car and shut her mouth by putting their hands on her mouth and those two persons committed "Galat Kaam" with her in the car. She further deposed that her father asked prosecutrix whether she can identify the car and the persons who took away and she replied in affirmative and thereafter, they started walking in the Gali and after sometime they found the said car standing in the Gali and prosecutrix identified the said car. PW-1 deposed that one person, again said two persons were sitting in the said car and those two persons were identified by prosecutrix to be the same, who committed Galat Kaam with her and those two persons were also present in the court. PW-1 also deposed that thereafter, they made a call at number 100 and police came at the spot and both the accused S.C No. 85/08 17/31 18 persons and thereafter, prosecutrix was medically examined at Jahangir Puri hospital and later on, police recorded her statement.
11. In the instant case, both the accused- Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar have been charged for committing the offences punishable u/s -363/34 IPC & u/s- 365/34 IPC.
Section- 361 of the IPC deals with the kidnapping from lawful guardianship and it provides that whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
Section-363 IPC deals with punishment for kidnapping and it provides that 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 pay fine.
In view of the above, it is clear that in order to attract the applicability of section-363 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that :-
(i) Person kidnapped was a minor
(ii) Such person was in the keeping of a lawful guardian
(iii) The accused took or enticed such person out of the said
kidnapping and
(iv) He did so without the consent of the lawful guardian
Further, Section-365 of the IPC deals with kidnapping or abducting S.C No. 85/08 18/31 19 with intention to secretly or wrongfully confine a person and it provides that whoever kidnaps or abduct any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years and shall also be liable to pay fine.
Accordingly, for an act to come within the purview of section -365 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that :-
(i) Accused kidnapped or abducted a person
(ii) He did so with intent to cause that person to be secretly and
wrongfully confined.
In the present case,, in her statement ( Ex.PW-1/A) recorded by the police, in her statement u/s- 164 Cr. PC ( Ex. PW-6/D) and in her deposition in the court, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that on the day of the incident she alongwith her parents had come from Rajasthan and reached Nanglipuna near Hanuman Mandir and they sat there and thereafter her father went inside the Hunuman Mandir for prayer and in the meantime a Maruti Zen Car of White Colour stopped near her and the person who was driving the said car dragged her inside the car and that one other person who was stockily built ( mota ) was sitting in the rear/back seat of the said car and thereafter they took her towards the jungle side and she identified the person who was driving the car as accused Naresh and the other person who was stockily built (mota) and sitting in the rear/back seat as accused Sanjeev. In the instant case, the prosecutrix was a minor as is evident from her ossification test report ( Ex. PW-20/A), wherein her estimated bony age S.C No. 85/08 19/31 20 was stated to be between 12-14 years. Further, at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was in the keeping of her lawful guardian i.e her parents and both the accused accused in furtherance of their common intention took her away without the consent of her parents with intent to cause prosecutrix to be secretly or wrongfully confined and as such all the ingredients for the applicability of Section -363/34 IPC & Section 365/34 IPC are fulfilled in this case. It is pertinent to note here that the prosecutrix has been cross examined at length, on the aspect of her kidnapping or wrongful confinement, by the Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material has come on record , which could assail or shake her credibility in this regard or which could be of any help to the accused persons.
It has been argued on behalf of the accused Naresh that prosecutrix was not knowing the accused persons prior to the incident and as such it was necessary for the prosecution to hold TIP proceedings qua the accused persons to get them identified from the prosecutrix during the investigation of the case, however the prosecution has failed to do so and the said fact is fatal to the case of the prosecution, however the said contention put forward on behalf of the accused persons does not hold water as perusal of the record reveals that both the accused Sanjeev Kumar and Naresh Kumar were arrested in the presence of the prosecutrix as is evident from their arrest memos ( Ex. PW-1/B & Ex. PW-1/C) and as such it was not necessary for the prosecution to get the T.I.P conducted qua the accused persons as both the accused persons were arrested in the presence of the prosecutrix herself.
In this regard, Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the case-law cited as (2000)1 SCC 247 & (1999)8 SCC 428, however the said case-law is distinguishable as the fact and circumstances of the present case are different from S.C No. 85/08 20/31 21 the fact and circumstances discussed therein.
Further, it has also been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that the conviction against the accused persons can not be recorded on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as she had made inconsistent and contradictory statements, however the said submissions made on behalf of the accused persons are devoid of any merits and are contrary to the record as perusal of the record reveals that prosecturix has made almost consistent statements regarding her kidnapping by the accused persons as is evident from her statement (Ex. PW-1/A) recorded by the police, her statement u/s- 164 Cr.PC ( Ex. PW-6/D) as well as in her deposition in the court and even in her cross examination the defence has not been able to shake the credibility of this witness i.e PW-1 ( prosecutrix ) as far as the commission of offences punishable - 363/34 IPC and u/s- 365/34 IPC by the accused persons is concerned.
Ld. defence counsels have relied upon the case law cited as (2007) 3 SCC (Crl.) 159, 2004 (1) JCC 409, (2007) 3 SCC ( Crl. ) 159, 36 (1988) DLT 8, 31 (1987) DLT 60, AIR 1979 SC 1408 & 1985 Crl. LJ 773, however the said case law is not applicable in the present case as the fact and circumstances of the present case were different from the fact and circumstances of the cases discussed in the said case law and in my considered opinion, the aforesaid case law is not of any help to the accused in the present case.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving on record beyond the reasonable doubts that on the day of the incident, both the accused- Sanjeev Kumar and Naresh Kumar, in furtherance of their common intention, kidnapped the prosecutrix a minor girl, from out of the keeping S.C No. 85/08 21/31 22 of her parents and without the consent of her parents with intention to secretly or wrongfully confine her. Accordingly, both the accused- Sanjeev Kumar and Naresh Kumar have rendered themselves liable for the offences punishable u/s- 363/34 IPC and u/s- 365/34 IPC.
12. In the present case both the accused-Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar have also been charged for committing the offence of 'gang rape' as punishable u/s- 376 (2) (g) IPC .
Explanation -I to subsection - (2 ) of section-376 IPC provides that where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this subsection.
It has been submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that in view of the Explanation-I to Section 376 (2) IPC both the accused are liable to be convicted u/s- 376 (2)((g) IPC as the rape was committed upon the prosecutrix in furtherance of their common intention. Whereas on the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel that accused -Naresh was not liable to be convicted u/s- 376 (2) (g) IPC as the prosecutrix has not made any allegation whatsoever of sexual assault against the said accused and even the prosecution has not been able to prove the presence of the accused at the time of the incident of rape and as such the accused-Naresh can not be held liable for the offence punishable u/s- 376 (2) ( g) IPC in this case.
In order to properly appreciate the role of accused Naresh in the commission of offence of rape, it will be appropriate to consider the relevant portions of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the police and S.C No. 85/08 22/31 23 before the Ld. MM as well as her deposition before the court. In her statement (Ex. PW-1/A) before the police , the prosecutrix stated that after being kidnapped, the boy who was driving the car i.e accused Naresh got down from the car after some distance and the other boy i.e accused Sanjeev who was present in the car stopped the car after some distance and did Gala Kaam with her on the rear seat of the car. Further, in her statement ( Ex. PW-6/D) recorded u/s- 164 Cr. PC, the prosecutrix stated that hefty ( mota ) man committed rape upon her and the said man was apprehended in the case on the same day, which again makes the presence of the accused Naresh doubtful at the time of commission of offence of rape upon the prosecutrix. In addition to this , in her examination in chief, prosecutrix stated that police took them towards the gali and accused Sanjeev was found present in the car at that time and she pointed out the said accused and thereafter he was apprehended by the police alongwith car. She further deposed that accused Naresh was not present in the said car or near the car at that time . It is pertinent to note that in her cross examination by the Ld. defence counsel, PW-1 ( prosecutrix ) also stated that she does not remember that after how much time, one of the accused got down from the car. She further stated that after one of the accused got down from the car, she again raised alarm but window panes of car were closed. In her cross examination, prosecutrix also admitted that only one of the accused was arrested in her presence. In these circumstances, in view of the aforesaid version regarding getting down of the accused Naresh from the car after some distance, the admission of the prosecutrix that accused Naresh was not present in the car or near the car at that time, specific averment of the prosecutrix that only accused- Sanjeev committed rape upon her and the presence of only one accused i.e Sanjeev at the time of his apprehension alongwith car creates doubt regarding the presence S.C No. 85/08 23/31 24 of the accused Naresh at the time of the commission of offence of rape and as such accused Naresh has become entitled to acquittal qua committing of offence punishable u/s- 376 (2) (g) IPC . Accordingly, I acquit the accused-Naresh of the offence punishable u/s- 376 (2) (g) IPC, giving him the benefit of doubt.
13. Further, it has been argued by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Sanjeev that the factum of rape itself is doubtful as in her statement recorded before the police as well as in her statement recorded u/s- 164 Cr. PC, prosecutrix has only stated that accused committed 'Galat Kaam' with her, but she has not leveled any specific allegation of rape against him, whereas in her deposition before the court, the prosecutrix stated that accused Sanjeev Kumar removed his pant and underwear and he also removed her Salwar and put his penis inside her vagina and did sexual intercourse with her forcibly and against her consent and as such she has made material improvements in her testimony, which creates doubts regarding the trustworthiness or credibility of her testimony and the same can not be relied upon to convict the accused. Ld. defence counsel also submitted that in addition to that, the allegation of rape made by the prosecutrix was also not corroborated by the medical evidence on record as no injuries were found on the person or private parts of the prosecutrix and the accused Sanjeev Kumar, which nullifies the factum of rape as has been alleged by the prosecutrix.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that prosecutrix has specifically stated that accused Sanjeev Kumar committed rape upon her forcibly against her wishes and without her consent and it is well settled law that sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to convict an accused and the absence of injuries on the person of prosecutrix and the accused does not by S.C No. 85/08 24/31 25 themselves rule out the commission of offence of rape. Ld. Addl. PP also submitted that prosecutrix have been cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel on this aspect, but her testimony regarding the commission of offence of rape upon her have not been shaken by the defence. I find considerable force in the aforesaid submissions made by the Ld. Addl.PP as the perusal of the record reveals that in her statement (Ex. PW-1/A) recorded by the police, in her statement u/s- 164 Cr. PC (Ex. PW-6/D) as well as in her deposition before the court, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that accused Sanjeev committed rape upon her against her wishes and without her consent. In this regard the prosecutrix has been cross examined at length by the Ld. defence counsel but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of the testimony of the prosecutrix. No doubt, there are certain contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1 ( prosecutrix ), however these contradictions/discrepancies are minor or trivial in nature and the same are not fatal to the case of the prosecution in the fact & circumstances of the present case.
In the case titled as "Sukhdev Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar"
(reported as JT-2001(7) - SC-597), it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:-
"The court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence. It is indeed necessary however to note that there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggeration or embellishment sometimes, there would be a deliberate attempt to offer the same. Sometime, the witnesses in S.C No. 85/08 25/31 26 their over anxiety to do better from the witness box details out an exaggerated account."
Hence, in view of the material on record, in particular, the testimony of the PW-1 (prosecutrix ), the prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt against the accused-Sanjeev for committing the offence punishable u/s-376 IPC. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused that in the absence of any corroboration, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can not form the basis for recording the conviction against the accused, however the said submissions made on behalf of the accused are devoid of any merits as it is well settled law that the conviction of the accused can be recorded on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as 2007 Crl. L.J. 4704 .
In the aforesaid case titled as "Radhu Vs. State of M.P." (reported as 2007 Crl. L.J. 4704), it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:-
" It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary. Even if there is consent , the act will still be 'rape', if the girl is under 16 years of age. "S.C No. 85/08 26/31 27
In the instant case, the prosecutrix ( PW-1) has specifically stated that the accused-Sanjeev committed rape upon her and in this regard, the prosecutrix has been cross examined at length by the Ld. defence counsel, but the defence has not able to impeach or discredit the testimony of prosecutrix on the aspect of committing of rape upon her by the accused- Sanjeev. In fact, in her cross
-examination, PW-1 (prosecutrix ) denied the suggestion that she have roped the accused persons in this case on the asking of her father. She further denied the suggestion that present case has been made against the accused persons by her father to extort money. She also denied the suggestion that she was not present on 24.4.2008 at the place of occurrence. PW-1( prosecutrix) denied the suggestion that accused did not come to the place of occurrence in Car No. DL8CD-4119 nor she was abducted. She further denied the suggestion that no rape was committed upon her. She also denied the suggestion that being interested witness in this case, she was deposing falsely on the behest of the prosecuting agency.
In addition to above, the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) has also been corroborated by the other circumstantial, forensic and medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The factum of rape is corroborated by the medical evidence on record. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that at the time of the medical examination of the prosecutrix, the concerned doctor found her hymen ruptured as is evident from the MLC (Ex. PW-5/A). Further, it has also come on record that accused-Sanjeev Kumar was capable of performing the sexual intercourse as was evident from his MLC, Ex. PW-8/B. In addition to this, FSL report ( Ex. PW-10/A) also reveals that Human Semen were detected on the Salwar of the prosecutrix and the underwear. Further, the case of the prosecution has also been supported by PW-3 Man Mohan, who deposed that on 24.04.2008 at S.C No. 85/08 27/31 28 about 10:00 A.M, accused Sanjeev Kumar came to him and took his Car No. DL8CD-4119 ( Ex. P-2) for the purpose of his family outing . It is pertinent to note that accused-Sanjeev was apprehended alongwith the said car at the time of his arrest and the PW-1 (prosecutrix) also identified the aforesaid Car ( Ex. P-2) to be the same, wherein rape upon her was committed by the accused -Sanjeev on the day of the incident.
It has been argued on behalf of the accused that there were no injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix, which implies that no rape has been committed upon her, however, absence of the injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix does not by itself falsify case of rape as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as 2007 Crl. L.J 4704, wherein it has been stated that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent. Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim.
Further, in the case titled as "Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P" (reported as JT 2008 (8) 271), it has also been laid down that :-
" It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian women has tendency to conceal such offence because it S.C No. 85/08 28/31 29 involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case. In the instance case the suggestion given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning. There was no apparent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate the accused after scatting her own prestige and honour ".
Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the case law cited as 1994 Crl. LJ 1216, 2003 Crl.LJ 268, AIR 1973 SC 343, 1995 JCC 470, AIR (29) 1942 Bombay 121,AIR 1997 SC 454,1998 SCC (Crl.) 892,1994 Supp. (2) SCC 289 & 1991 (1) Delhi Lawyers 17, however the said case law is distinguishable as the fact and circumstances of the present case are different from the fact and circumstances of the cases discussed in the said case law and in my considered opinion, the aforesaid case law is not of any help to the accused in the present case in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases reported as 2007 Crl. L.J 4704 & JT 2008 (8) 271.
14. In the instant case, accused Sanjeev have also led evidence in his defence and therein he has examined three witnesses i.e DW-1 to DW-3.
DW-1 HC Sambhu Singh has recorded the FIR No.-66/09, u/s- 354 IPC at P.S Bawana. PW-2 Dr. Rajat Mitra has prepared the counselling report and proceedings ( Ex. DW-2/A & Ex. DW-2/B) qua prosecutrix and DW-3 Insp. H.S Meena, who deposed that Dr. Rajat Mitra was called to P.S Bawana for counselling of the prosecutrix. DW-3 also deposed that as SHO, P.S Bawana, he S.C No. 85/08 29/31 30 made endorsement on the statement of the prosecutrix , on the basis of which FIR No. 66/09 ( Ex. DW-1/A) was registered at P.S Bawana. It appears that all these witnesses i.e DW-1 to DW-3 have been examined on behalf of the accused to show that prosecutrix was being sexual exploited by her father prior to the incident in the present case, however it has not been explained on record by the defence as to how the said alleged previous sexual exploitation of the prosecutrix by her father impacts or effects the commission of rape upon the prosecutrix by the accused Sanjeev in the instant case. Further, it is pertinent to note that all these witnesses i.e DW-1 to DW-3 have not deposed anything about the incident in the present case. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the testimonies of DW-1 to DW-3 are not of much use to the accused Sanjeev in the fact and circumstances of the present case. It has also been submitted on behalf of the accused Sanjeev Kumar that he has falsely implicated in this case by the family members of the prosecutrix to extort money from him, however the said contention put forward on behalf of the accused does not hold water as no explaination whatsoever have been brought on record by the defence to show as to why the family members of the prosecutrix will want to extort money from accused- Sanjeev. Even otherwise, it is highly improbable that any family will use or malign their own daughter to implicate any person in a false case.
15. Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove on record, beyond the reasonable doubt that on the day of the incident, both the accused Sanjeev and Naresh in furtherance of their common intention, kidnapped the prosecutrix, a S.C No. 85/08 30/31 31 minor girl, from out of the keeping of her parents without the consent of her parents with intention to secretly or wrongfully confine her and thereafter accused Sanjeev committed rape upon the prosecutrix against her wishes and without her consent. Accordingly, I hold both the accused-Sanjeev Kumar and Naresh Kumar guilty of the offences punishable u/s- 363/34 IPC & u/s-365/34 IPC and convict them accordingly. Accused Sanjeev Kumar is also held guilty and convicted u/s- 376 IPC.
Now to come up for arguments on the point of sentence on 25.9.2010 .
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(court on 22.09.2010) Addl. Sessions Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
S.C No. 85/08 31/31
32
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST)-04, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 85/08)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0669192008
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr.
FIR No. : 85/2008
U/s : 363/34 IPC, u/s- 365/34 IPC & u/s-376 IPC
P.S : Swaroop Nagar
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
In the present case, both the convicts- Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar have been convicted u/s- 363/34 IPC & u/s-365/34 IPC and convict-Sanjeev Kumar have also been convicted u/s-376 IPC .
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence put forward by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. defence counsels for the convicts.
2. It has been submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP that in view of the heinous nature of offences, the convicts are not entitled to any leniency and he prays that maximum sentence prescribed by the law may be imposed upon both the convicts.
3. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. Defence counsels that both the convict -Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar are not previous convicts S.C No. 85/08 32/31 33 and are having clean antecedents. Ld. defence counsel for the convict -Sanjeev Kumar submits that the said convict is a young man and is the sole bread earner of his family consisting of grand mother, old age parents, wife and two children and there is none else to look-after his family and parents of the said convict are also suffering from various medical ailments. Ld. Defence counsel for the convict Naresh Kumar submits that there is none else to look-after the family of the said convict, who is also a young man and is the sole bread earner of his family consisting of old age parents, wife and two children, who are suffering from various ailments. Ld. Defence counsels also submit both the convicts have already remained in custody for about two & half years during the investigation and trial of this case and they pray that in view of the family circumstances of the convicts, lenient view may be taken in this case.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. defence counsels and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
5. In the present case, the convicts- Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar have been convicted u/s- 363/34 IPC & u/s-365/34 IPC and convict-Sanjeev Kumar have also been convicted u/s-376 IPC . Keeping in view the nature and gravity of offences and having regard to the adverse impact which such like offences can have on the society in general and victim in particular, I am of the considered opinion that the convicts do not deserve any leniency in the fact and circumstances of the present case. In these circumstances and having regard to the family circumstances of the convicts, both the convicts - Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar are sentenced to undergo RI for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
S.C No. 85/08 33/31 34each in default SI for five months each u/s- 363/34 IPC. Both the convicts- Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar are further sentenced to undergo RI for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default SI for five months each u/s- 365/34 IPC. Convict Sanjeev Kumar is also sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default SI for one year u/s-376 IPC, which sentences shall meet the ends of justice in this case.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit u/s- 428 Cr.PC be also given to the convicts.
Conviction warrants be prepared accordingly.
Copies of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to the convicts, free of cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 25.09.2010) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
S.C No. 85/08 34/31
35
FIR No.-85/08
P.S.- Swaroop Nagar
25.09.2010
Present: Addl.PP for the State.
Convict Sanjeev Kumar in JC with counsel Sh.R.S. Malik.
Convict Naresh Kumar in JC with counsel Sh. Javed Alvi.
Arguments on the point of sentence, heard.
Vide separate order on the point of sentence, announced in the open court, both the convicts- Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar have been sentenced to undergo RI for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default SI for five months each u/s-363/34 IPC. Both the convicts- Sanjeev Kumar & Naresh Kumar have also been sentenced to undergo RI for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default SI for five months each u/s- 365/34 IPC. Convict-Sanjeev Kumar has also been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default SI for one year u/s-376 IPC, which sentences shall meet the ends of justice, in this case.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Benefit u/s- 428 Cr.PC be also given to the convicts.
Conviction warrants be prepared accordingly.
Copies of the judgment and order on the point of sentence be supplied to the convicts, free of cost.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(Court on 25.09.2010) Addl. Session Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
S.C No. 85/08 35/31