Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Zaheer Alam S/O. Sh. Mubarak Miya on 9 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
01(EAST) : KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SC No. 153/2011
FIR No. 219/11
PS. Gandhi Nagar
US. 363/365/366A/376/34 IPC
Instituted on 13.12.11
Argued on 23.04.14
Decided on 30.04.14
State Vs. 1. Zaheer Alam S/o. Sh. Mubarak Miya
R/o. 9/4033, Gali No. 17, Ajeet Nagar, Gandhi
Nagar, Delhi
2. Reshma W/o. Sh. Zaheer Alam
R/o. 9/4033, Gali No. 17, Ajeet Nagar, Gandhi
Nagar, Delhi
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution is that Kishan Lal( PW2) visited PS Gandhi Nagar on 18.08.11 and made a complaint regarding missing of his daughter (hereinafter mentioned as prosecutrix). He mentioned in his complaint that prosecutrix aged about 13 yrs had gone to the school in the morning at about 7.30 AM in school dress but has not returned back. On inquiry he came to know that she had not reached school and he has suspicion that some unknown person had kidnapped her. PW15 SI Rajpal Singh prepared rukka and got FIR registered under Section 363 IPC. On 22.08.11 PW2 made allegations against accused Zaheer Alam. Accused Zaheer Alam was not found FIR No. 219/11 1 of page 17 in his rented house. IO SI PW15 collected mobile number of accused Zaheer Alam and obtained call details of his mobile. From Bhupender where accused Zaheer Alam was working, IO came to know that accused was having another mobile Number. Location of the mobile phone used by accused was found to be at Ludhiana . On 31.08.11 IO PW15 with maternal uncle of the prosecutrix namely Mukesh reached Ludhiana, PS Basti Jodhewal and searched for prosecutrix and accused but could not find them. On 1.09.11 IO got information on the basis of photograph of accused Zaheer Alam that a new tenant has come in the house No. 104 B, New Subhash Nagar. At this address landlord Balbir told IO that accused was staying there as a tenant since 18.08.13 and accused is leaving the room and is going somewhere else .At 7.30 PM accused came there and was apprehended . At the instance of accused, prosecutrix was recovered from the house No. 662, Basti Jodhewal . Accused and his wife Reshma were arrested. Both accused and prosecutrix were brought to Delhi . Medical examination of the prosecutrix was got done from SDN Hospital. Statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. After investigation police filed chargesheet against accused persons section 363/365/366A/376/34 IPC.
2. Charge u/s 363/34 IPC, 365/34 IPC and 376 IPC was given to accused Zaheer Alam to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge under Section 363/34 IPC, 365/34IPC and 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC was given to accused Reshma to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 15 witnesses. PW1 FIR No. 219/11 2 of page 17 Balbir Singh, Peon, Guru Nanak Girls Sr. Secondary School, Gandhi Nagar proved attested copy of application form of the prosecutrix and attested copy of birth certificate as Ex.PW1/A and B. He also produced original admission register of the prosecutrix , copy of the same is Ex.PW1/C. PW2 Krishan Lal is the father of the prosecutrix and complainant. He proved his complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW3 ASI Madhvi got statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. PW4 Smt. Sunena Sharma Ld.MM proved statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C as Ex.PW4/A. PW5 Jagat Ram is the landlord of the accused at Gandhi Nagar. PW6 is the prosecutrix. She admitted her signature at her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C . PW7 Dr. Manoj Kumar CMO, SDN Hospital proved MLC of accused Zaheer Alam as Ex. PW7/A. PW8 Manju is the mother of the prosecutrix. PW9 Balbir Chand is from Ludhiana, accused had taken a room in his house on rent. PW10 Mukesh Kuma is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. He had gone with police to Basti Jodhewal,Ludhiana from where both the accused and prosecutrix was recovered. He proved recovery memo of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW10/A, disclosure statement of Zaheer Alam Ex. PW10/B, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Zaheer Alam Ex. PW10/C and D, personal search of accused Reshma Ex.PW10/E. PW11 Lady Ct. Suman had taken prosecutrix to SDN Hospital for medical examination. She proved seizure memo Ex.PW11/A vide which exhibits given by doctor were taken into possession by IO. PW12 Ct. Gurbachan has taken exhibits from Malkhana to FSL and deposited the same there. PW13 Kiran is the friend of the prosecutrix. PW14 Dr. Suman Raje SDN Hospital proved FIR No. 219/11 3 of page 17 MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex. PW14/A. PW15 SI Rajpal is the IO. He proved rukka Ex. PW15/A, site plan Ex.PW15/B, seizure memo Ex. PW15/C vide which attendance register of accused at place of his work was seized, copy of attendance register Ex. PW15/D, arrest memo of accused Reshma Ex. PW15/E, her disclosure statement Ex. PW15/F, seizure memo Ex. PW15/G vide which after medical examination of accused Zaheer Alam, exhibits were seized, seizure memo Ex. PW15/H vide which three mobile phones recovered from the possession of accused were seized, copy of FIR No. 219/11 as Ex PW15/J and Ex. PW15/K regarding the place of recovery of the prosecutrix.
4. On the basis of incriminating evidence against accused persons, their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C were recorded wherein they denied entire evidence and took the defence of false implication. Defence taken by accused is that accused Zaheer Alam was a friend of PW2, he had given a loan of Rs. 45,000/ from PW2. When accused persons demanded Rs.45,000/ to PW2 , he misbehaved with them and threatened to falsely implicated them in a case. The prosecutrix was having friendly relations with one boy namely Anand and had gone with him. PW2 in collusion with local police has falsely implicated them. Both the accused did not lead evidence in their defence.
5. Heard arguments of Sh. Maqsood Ahmad, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Mohd. S. Hasan Zaidi Ld Amicus Curiae for accused. Perused the case file.
6. Ld. APP for the State submitted that statement of the FIR No. 219/11 4 of page 17 prosecutrix is consistent and it also stands proved that she was recovered from the possession of accused persons at Ludhiana. It is stated that PW10 Mukesh Kumar and IO PW15 have recovered prosecutrix from Ludhiana which further supports statement of the prosecutrix. It is stated that PW9, who is landlord of the accused at Ludhiana, has further supported case of the prosecution. It is further argued that as per MLC of the prosecutrix, hymen was found raptured which also supporting her testimony before this court.
7. Sh S. Hasan Zaidi, Ld. Amicus curiae for accused persons submitted that prosecution has failed to establish the age of the prosecutrix as record produced by PW1 is not reliable. It is stated that PW2 is the complainant and his statement is full of contradiction. It is stated that PW2 has only deposed about relationship between mother and prosecutrix and accused persons. It is stated that PW13 was most material witness but she has not supported prosecution which is fatal to the prosecution case. It is stated that no DD entry is produced by the IO to prove that he had gone to Ludhiana and had recovered prosecutrix from there. It is stated that prosecutrix was having relationship with one boy namely Anand and she had gone with him and PW3 got accused persons falsely implicated in this case.
8. Prosecutrix is examined as PW6. She deposed that on 18.08.11 at 7 AM she was going to school. Accused Reshma, who is friend of her mother, met her on the way. Accused Reshma asked her to accompany her for outing. She refused to accompany her but accused stated that she will drop her at her school. Thereafter she FIR No. 219/11 5 of page 17 had gone with her. After covering some distance, accused changed the way and took her towards Gandhi Nagar Main Road, where accused Zaheer Alam , who is her husband, was waiting in an auto. Accused Reshma asked her to go with accused Zaheer Alam but she refused to go with him. On this, accused Reshma pushed her in TSR and she was taken towards Kashmere Gate ISBT. Accused Zaheer Alam asked her to come with him otherwise threatened to kill her with a knife. Accused took her in a bus and accused Reshma returned back. Accused Zaheer Alam took her to Ludhiana in a bus and there took her in a room which he had already taken on rent. During night accused Zaheel Alam did sexual intercourse with her against her wish. Accused Reshma also r came there there after 23 days but she returned during night. Thereafter accused Zaheer Alam did sexual intercourse with her against her wish. On 25.08.11 accused Reshma returned back to Ludhiana. Thereafter Zaheer Alam daily used to do sexual intercourse with her. Accused Zaheer Alam received a call telling him that the police is searching him. Accused Zaheer Alam told accused Reshma that they should shift from this place. Thereafter both the accused shifted to a factory and also took her with them. From there they sent a boy to collect their household articles. Police caught hold that boy and that boy brought the police to the factory. Police caught hold both the accused. They were taken to local PS. Her maternal uncle Mukesh was also accompanying the police. Police brought her and both the accused to Delhi. She was taken to GTB hospital for medical examination. Her clothes and underwear were taken by doctor. She was produced before the court and her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C was got recorded.
FIR No. 219/11 6 of page 17 During cross examination by accused, she admitted that she used to visit the house of accused along with her mother; she was threatened and beaten by accused in the Auto asking her not to raise alarm; due to fear of accused, she did not make any complaint to any passenger against accused; there was no window in the rooms where she was kept; she had bleeded from her private parts and clothes which she was wearing and bedsheet got blood spots.
9. Ex. PW4/B is the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by Ms. Sunena Sharma Ld. MM under Section 164 Cr.P. C , here also prosecutrix has made same allegations as deposed by her before this court.
10. PW2 Krishan Lal is the complainant being father of the prosecutrix. As per him, first time after 15 days he along with IO PW15 went to Ludhiana in search of his daughter but he could not trace her. Later on, prosecutrix was recovered by the police and IO informed him on his mobile phone that his daughter has been recovered. He along with his wife went to PS Gandhi Nagar and police sent his wife and prosecutrix to SDN Hospital for medical examination . Both accused used to visit his house.
11. PW8 Manju is the mother of the prosecutrix. As per her on 18.08.11 at about 7AM, her daughter had left the house for her school but did not return back till 1.30 PM. She inquired from students who used to go with her daughter. She was told that her daughter was not seen by them in the school. She went to the school and met class teacher but the class teacher told her that her daughter had not come in the school. Regarding her acquittance with accused FIR No. 219/11 7 of page 17 persons, she deposed that about five years back, she used to visit to Tantrik for treatment of her son where accused Reshma met her. She developed friendship with accused Reshma and both accused had visited their house. She along with her husband also used to visit the house of accused persons. When her daughter went missing, accused persons were also not present in their house.
12. As per prosecution case, prosecutrix was recovered from Ludhiana from the possession of accused persons. As per IO PW15, on 22.08.11 complainant PW2 made allegations against accused Zaheer Alam. Accused Zaheer Alam was not found in his rented house. He collected mobile number of accused Zaheer Alam and obtained call details of the said mobile. He also contacted Bhupender where accused Zaheer Alam was working and accused was also not found there. Bhupender informed him that accused was using another mobile phone and provided new number to him. He made inquiry regarding mobile number 9216227882 and its location was found to be at Ludhiana . On 31.08.11 he along with other staff and PW10 Mukesh, who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, reached at PS Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, taking local assistance they searched for prosecutrix at New Subhash Nagar but could not find her there. They were carrying photograph of accused, showed it to the public persons but did not get any clue. On 1.09.11 they again went to PS Basti Jodhewal and reached New Subhash Nagar and from there on the basis of photograph of accused Zaheer Alam, they got information that a new tenant has come in the house No. 104 B, New Subhash Nagar. They reached there, it was house of Balbir Chand , who met there and identified accused Zaheer Alam on the FIR No. 219/11 8 of page 17 basis of photograph . Balbir further told that accused had introduced a girl as his sister in law. Balbir Chand also told that accused is going somewhere after leaving the room and he had already taken victim and his wife and will come to take his household articles. At 7.30 PM accused came there and was apprehended. During interrogation accused admitted that prosecutrix is with him and he had left victim in a a factory where he used to work . Accused led them to house No. 662, Basti Jodhewal and there from the roof prosecutrix was recovered. Both accused persons were arrested and prosecutrix was brought to Delhi.
13. PW10 Mukesh Kumar who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix had accompanied Police to Ludhiana on 31.08.11. As per PW10, he along with his brother in law Kishan ( PW2) had accompanied Police to Basti Jodhewal Ludhiana. IO showed photograph of the prosecutrix to the shop owner who identified the girl and told that a man who was accompanying the said girl had purchased a Sim No. 9216227882 and further told that they are residing nearby the shop. On further inquiry police found that accused was residing at house No. 104 B of Balbir Chand but at that time were not present in the house. Regarding recovery of prosecutrix at instance of Balbir Chand, PW10 has supported statement of IO PW15.
14. PW9 Balbir Chand is the owner of house No. 4B, Gali No. 5/2 New Subhash Nagar, Ludhiana Punjab. As per him, he used to give room on rent in his house. On 13/14.08.11 accused Zaheer Alam along with one local man came to him for taking a room on rent for his family. Rent of Rs.1100/ per month was settled between him and FIR No. 219/11 9 of page 17 accused Zaheer Alam. Accused had given Rs.100/ as advance . Accused told him that he would come on 18.08.11. Accused along with one girl to whom he was telling as his sister in law( Saali) had come on 18.08.11 at 4.00 PM. At that time accused told him that his wife was in PGI hospital where her brother was admitted. Accused Zaheer Alam started staying with that girl in rented room. On 20.08.11 at about 6.30 AM accused Reshma came in the rented room and stayed there for about two hours and went back stating that she along with her brother would go to Delhi from PGI and would get admitted her brother there. Thereafter on 25/26.08.11 accused Reshma along with one trunk, folding bed and some other goods came there at about 4.00 AM and since then she resided in his house. Accused Reshma was not allowing that girl to talk with any one and she used to live with that girl. Accused Reshma was also not allowing that girl to go outside. Accused Reshma told him that she was going to vacate his room stating that she will go to her village. Accused Reshma took all her articles during day time. Accused Reshma and accused Zaheer Alam took that girl namely ( correct name told) with them and told him that they will come back after leaving her with their known persons. Accused Zaheer Alam also told him that he would arrange vehicle to leave them at station. Police reached there and accused Zaheer Alam came to his house at about at about 7.30 AM and he was apprehended by the police. On inquiry accused Zaheer Alam told that he had kept victim along with his wife at the first Floor, Basti Jodhewal Ludhiana, Punjab.
15. To assail the credibility of PW9, Ld. Amicus Cuirae for accused pointed out that during his cross examination PW9 admitted that FIR No. 219/11 10 of page 17 police officials were five in number, all were from Delhi Police and no public witness was accompanying them. Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused persons further pointed out that as per PW10, who is maternal uncle of th prosecutrix, complainant also accompanied them to Ludhiana but statement of PW2 is silent regarding his visit when prosecutrix was recovered. Ld. Amicus Curiae has urged that all this proves that entire prosecution case has been cooked up to falsely implicate accused persons.
16. There are contradictions in the statements of complainant PW2, PW10 and IO PW15 regarding visit of PW2 to Ludhiana. As per prosecution case, prosecutrix went missing on 18.08.11 and was recovered on 1.09.11 from Ludhiana. As per complainant PW2, first time after 15 days he had gone to Ludhiana with IO in search of the prosecutrix but she could not be traced. Later on prosecutrix was recovered by the police and IO informed him on his mobile phone that his daughter has been recovered but as per PW10 and PW15 on 31.08.11 PW2 had accompanied them to Ludhiana and he was with them on 01.09.11 when prosecutrix was recovered. Prosecutrix remained missing from 18.08.11 to 1.09.11. As mentioned above, as per PW2 he had gone to Ludhiana only after 15 days of this incident and had returned back and later on IO informed him regarding recovery of the prosecutrix . Since prosecutrix was recovered in less than 15 days, it appears that complainant PW2 made this statement under some confusion. As pointed out by Ld. Amicus Curiae, PW9 has stated that Delhi police reached there and no public witness was accompanying them. This version given by PW9 is contrary to the facts but otherwise statement of PW9 is found to be consistent and FIR No. 219/11 11 of page 17 credible and supporting statement of PW10 and IO PW15. Contradictions discussed above are minor in nature and do not shake the core of the prosecution case and statements of these witnesses. In state of U.P V. Naresh, (2011)4 SCC 324, Apex Court has observed that: " In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence".
17. PW5 Jagat Ram is the land lord of the accused persons. As per him, both the accused persons were his tenants for the last one year. Prior to that, both the accused have remained his tenants , thereafter they had shifted to some other house and had again returned back to his house. Accused Reshma was having good acquaintance and relations with Manju( PW8) who was residing in Gali No. 8. He has seen accused Reshma and PW8 together in his FIR No. 219/11 12 of page 17 house number of times. On 11.05.11 PW8 and her daughter i.e prosecutrix had attended the marriage of his daughter. On 18.08.11 PW8 and her husband had come to inquire about both the accused persons but both the accused persons were not present in the house. During cross examination PW5 stated that PW8 and her husband had come to his house on 18.08.11 at about 22.30 PM. On 22.08.11 accused Reshma came to his house in the evening time, he informed about it to the IO and took Reshma, PW8 and her husband PW2 to the PS. There IO inquired from Reshma and thereafter released her.
18. Statement of PW5 is supporting the statement of prosecutrix and her mother regarding their relations with Reshma. Regarding taking of accused Reshma to the PS along with PW2 and PW8, statements of PW2, PW8 and IO PW15 are silent to this effect. Why accused Reshma was taken to PS on 22.08.11 by complainant PW2 and his wife PW8 and was released by IO PW15, prosecution case is silent about it. However keeping in view of clear and consistent statement of the prosecutrix and her parents i.e PW2 and PW8, PW9 Balbir Chand,landlord of accused persons at Ludhiana, omissions on this fact in the statements of these witnesses can be safely ignored.
19. PW13 Kiran is another important witness but she has not supported prosecution case. This witness was examined by prosecution to establish intimacy between prosecutrix, her family and accused persons. As per her, prosecutrix was studying with her since sixth class. One day prosecutrix went missing. Her mother came to her house to inquire about the prosecutrix. She told mother FIR No. 219/11 13 of page 17 of the prosecutrix that she had not gone to school and she does not know anything about her. She was cross examined at length and was confronted with her statement Ex. PW3/A by Ld. Addl. PP for the State after declaring her hostile. But nothing came on record to support prosecution. It has been urged by Ld. Amicus Curiae that PW13 who is friend of the prosecutrix and independent public witness has not supported prosecution and same has caused dent to the prosecution case. I do not agree with this contention raised by Ld. Amicus Curie for accused persons. Though PW13 has not supported the prosecution case in any manner but fact regarding relations between family of prosecutrix and accused persons stands established from the statements of PW9 who was landlord of the accused persons and an independent public witness.
20. Other contention raised by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused is that prosecution has failed to produce any DD entry made in the local PS or examine local police officials from Ludhiana to support its version that prosecutrix was recovered from Ludhiana . Prosecution has not examined any official from PS Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana. As per IO PW15, on 31.08.11 they had gone to PS Basti Jodhewal and made arrival entry there and one Ct. from local PS had accompanied them to New Subhash Nagar. PW9 Balbir Chand is resident of Ludhiana. He is an independent witness and it was his house where Zaheer Alam had kept the prosecutrix. PW9 had specifically identified the girl which stayed with accused in house with name, which is prosecutrix.
21. Ex. PW14/A is the MLC of the prosecutrix as per which her FIR No. 219/11 14 of page 17 hymen was found raptured . This MLC also support statement of the prosecutrix regarding the allegations of rape being committed by Zaheer Alam on her.
23. Ld. Amicus Curiae has also assailed prosecution case by arguing that it has failed to establish the age of the prosecutrix . Ld. Amicus Curiae has pointed out that PW1 has produced school record of the prosecutrix. During cross examination PW1 admitted that there is no original date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix on record and date of birth certificate produced by parents is not got verified from the MCD. There is no such defence put by accused persons to the prosecutrix that she at her own had gone with them to Ludhiana or away from her house. PW2 and PW8 who are parents of the prosecutrix have given her age as 13 years at the time of this incident and same is age given by the prosecutrix while deposing before this court . School record produced by PW1 also proves her age to be around 13 yrs at the time of this incident. Prosecutrix was admitted in Guru Nank Girls Senior Secondary School, Gandhi Nagar on 12.04.04. I find no reason to disbelieve her date of birth record/ school record produced by PW1.
23. Other contention raised by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused persons is that as per prosecutrix, she was taken by accused persons in TSR via ISBT Kashmere Gate. From there she was taken in a bus to Ludhiana and from there she was taken to room taken on rent by accused Zaheer Alam. It is contended that as per prosecutrix, she did not raise any alarm which proves that she had willingly gone with accused persons. Prosecutrix has nowhere stated if she had raised FIR No. 219/11 15 of page 17 alarm either in TSR or in bus or at Ludhiana. It has to be appreciated that she is a girl of tender age. As per prosecutrix, while taking her to ISBT Kashmere Gate in TSR , accused Zaheer Alam had threatened her to kill her with a knife . It is not strange and unbelievable that being under scare of the accused and overawed by the presence of accused, she did not complain or raise alarm on the way.
24. Ld. Amicus Curiae pointed out various contradictions which came during the cross examination of prosecutrix stating that it creates shadow of doubt on her credibility. The points on which prosecutrix is confronted during her cross examination are minor in nature which do not go to the root of the matter. In the case Jayaseelan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009 III AD (SC)136, the Apex Court has held that even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, his conviction can be maintained and that while normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so.
25. The way in which prosecutrix was taken by accused persons, when she went with accused Reshma, she was pushed in an auto in which accused Zaheer Alam was waiting, proves that they both shared common intention for kidnapping her. It also stands proved from the statements of the prosecutrix and PW9 that accused Reshma kept on visiting accused Zaheer Alam at Ludhiana which further proves that throughout they shared common intention under which prosecution was kept detained at Ludhiana and she was raped by accused Zaheer Alam.
FIR No. 219/11 16 of page 17
26. The defence taken by accused is that prosecutrix was having an affair with a boy named Anand and had established physical relations with him. The other defence taken by accused persons is that father of prosecutrix had attempted to rape her, she told about it to her mother but she did not pay any intention towards it. When accused persons talked with her father about it he picked up a quarrel with them. The other defence taken by accused persons is that a money transaction had taken place between accused Zaheer Alam and father of prosecutrix, when accused demanded his money, father of prosecutrix hatched a conspiracy with local police and got him falsely implicated in this case. Except putting suggestions during crossexamination of prosecutrix and her mother (PW8) accused persons have failed to bring any proof on record to establish their defence. In the absence of any proof I find no substance in the above mentioned defence taken by accused persons.
27. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is held that prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons. Accused Zaheer Alam is held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Section 363/365/34 IPC and under Section 376 IPC. Accused Reshma is also held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 363/365/34 IPC and under Section 109 read with Section 376 IPC. Both the accused persons are accordingly convicted.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
ON 30.04. 2014 (SANJAY GARG)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(EAST) 01
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 219/11 17 of page 17
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
01(EAST) : KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.SC No. 153/2011 FIR No. 219/11
PS. Gandhi Nagar
US. 363/365/34 IPC and u/s. 376 IPC
State Vs. Zaheer Alam S/o. Sh. Mubarak Miya
R/o. 9/4033, Gali No. 17, Ajeet Nagar, Gandhi
Nagar, Delhi
ORDER ON QUANTUM
1. I have heard argument of Sh. Maqsood Ahmad, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. S. Hasan Zaidi, Ld. Amicus Curiae for convict on quantum of sentence.
2. Ld. APP submits that keeping in view gravity of the offence maximum punishment be awarded to the convict.
3. Ld. Amicus Curiae for convict submits that the convict is first offender, not involved in any other criminal case. It is stated that convict is aged 40 years and is married with his coaccused Reshma . It is stated that convict was working as a tailor. It is stated that his old parents are dependent upon him for their livelihood. It is stated that his father is patient of T.B and mother is suffering from cancer. It is stated that he is in J/C since 01.09.11. It is stated that a lenient view be taken and he be sentenced to period of imprisonment already undergone by him as under trial in this case.
4. The victim in this case is just aged thirteen years and she was subjected to horrific and sadistic sexual assault repeatedly. A recent report FIR No. 219/11 18 of page 17 by Asian Centre for Women Rights says that incidents of child rape have multiplied in the last decade. The recent horrific incidents of rape have created a furore in the society. It appears across the nation the childhood is at risk. The children of this age are vulnerable and are easy prey to such sexual assaults. In view of these circumstances the convict deserves no leniency. He is, accordingly as under : For the offence u/s. 363 IPC he is sentenced to undergo RI for four years with a fine of Rs.1000/ and in default to undergo one month SI. For the offence punishable u/s 365 IPC he is also sentenced to undergo RI for four years with a fine of Rs.1000/ and in default to undergo one month SI and for the offence u/s 376 IPC he is also sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with a fine of Rs.2000/ and in default to undergo two months SI. All the sentences to run concurrently.
5. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict. Copy of judgment and this order be given to the convict free of cost. Copy of order be sent separately to DLSA, East with a direction to pay compensation to the victim as per the provisions of guidelines of Delhi Government under Victim Compensation Scheme.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
ON 09.05.2014 (SANJAY GARG)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(EAST) 01
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 219/11 19 of page 17
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:
01(EAST) : KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.SC No. 153/2011 FIR No. 219/11
PS. Gandhi Nagar
US. 363/365/34 IPC and u/s. 109 read
with Section 376 IPC
State Vs. Reshma W/o. Zaheer Alam
R/o. 9/4033, Gali No. 17, Ajeet Nagar, Gandhi
Nagar, Delhi
ORDER ON QUANTUM
1. I have heard argument of Sh. Maqsood Ahmad, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. S. Hasan Zaidi, Ld. Amicus Curiae for convict on quantum of sentence.
2. Ld. APP submits that keeping in view gravity of the offence maximum punishment be awarded to the convict.
3. Ld. Amicus Curiae for convict submits that the convict is first offender, not involved in any other criminal case. It is stated that convict is aged 40 years and is married with her coaccused Zaheer. It is stated that she is in J/C since 02.09.11. It is stated that a lenient view be taken and he be sentenced to period of imprisonment already undergone by him as undertrial in this case.
4. The victim in this case is just aged thirteen years and she was subjected to horrific and sadistic sexual assault repeatedly. A recent report by Asian Centre for Women Rights says that incidents of child rape have multiplied in the last decade. The recent horrific incidents of rape have FIR No. 219/11 20 of page 17 created a furore in the society. It appears across the nation the childhood is at risk. The children of this age are vulnerable and are easy prey to such sexual assaults. In view of these circumstances the convict deserves no leniency. He is, accordingly as under : For the offence u/s. 363 IPC she is sentenced to undergo RI for four years with a fine of Rs.1000/ and in default to undergo one month SI. For the offence punishable u/s 365 IPC she is also sentenced to undergo RI for four years with a fine of Rs.1000/ and in default to undergo one month SI and for the offence u/s 376 read with section 109 IPC she is also sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with a fine of Rs.
1000/ and in default to undergo one month SI. All the sentences to run concurrently.
5. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict. Copy of judgment and this order be given to the convict free of cost. Copy of order be sent separately to DLSA, East with a direction to pay compensation to the victim as per the provisions of guidelines of Delhi Government under Victim Compensation Scheme.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
ON 09.05.2014 (SANJAY GARG)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE(EAST) 01
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. 219/11 21 of page 17