Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev Kumar, on 28 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.26/15.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0031472015.
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar,
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh,
R/o 788/177, Lacknow Cantt. U.P.
Also at :
RZF-1/13A, Gali No.1, Mahavir Enclave,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 21.3.2015.
FIR No.235 dated 13.5.2014.
U/s. 376/511/354 IPC.
P.S. Palam Village.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 20/24.7.2015
Date of pronouncement : 28.7.2015.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Sanjeev Kumar has been facing trial for the offence u/s.376/511 IPC.
Prosecution case :
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix namely 'S' (real name withheld in order to conceal her identity) after she had become drunk during a party organized by the accused at his house on 10.5.2014. It is stated that besides the prosecutrix and the accused, their colleagues namely Atif, Ruchi, Gunjan, Sarthak SC No.26/15. Page 1 of 39 and Jayant were also in the party. It is also stated that all of them were working in M/s. Convergys, Gurgaon. The accused was the Team Leader whereas the prosecutrix, Atif, Ruchi, Gunjan, Sarthak and Jayant were members of his team and the accused had thrown a party for them at his house on the aforesaid day on being promoted as Team Leader.
3. The Charge Sheet further reveals that the prosecutrix had submitted a written complaint in the police station on 13.5.2014, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder:
"I have a complaint that my supervisor tried to rape me. We knew each other as we are working in the same organization i.e. Convergys. On Saturday, we had a party organized at Sanjeev's place which is in Janakpuri (West), near Mahavir Enclave Part-I. We were seven friends i.e. me, Sanjeev, Atif, Ruchi, Gunjan, Sarthak and Jayant. We had a party, music and enjoyed. I got high. I slept. I went with Gunjan to her PG in Nirmal Vihar. When I woke in the morning, I realized, I was missing one of my inner garments and i was then trying to recall everything. I could recall that when I was sleeping, my friends Jayant, Atif, Gunjan, Sarthak were shouting, banging the door. I could recall, Sanjeev standing before me. I slept again. I was not in my senses on Saturday after I got drunk but could make out something happened. Due to few things, I could notice. I request necessary action should be taken against this case."(Sic) SC No.26/15. Page 2 of 39
4. FIR u/s.376/511/354 IPC was registered on the basis of aforesaid complaint of the prosecutrix and the investigation was commenced by SI Kailash Devi. She took the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital for medical examination and seized the exhibits given by the doctor. Accused came to be arrested on the same day i.e. 13.5.2014 on the identification of the prosecutrix from his residence. He was got medically examined in DDU Hospital and the exhibits given by the doctor were seized by the IO. An NGO Counsellor counselled the prosecutrix in the police station. Her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC was got recorded on 14.5.2014. All the exhibits were then sent to FSL for forensic examination.
5. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was laid by the IO before the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate.
6. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, Charge u/s.376/511 IPC was framed against the accused on 18.4.2015. The accused denied the charge and hence trial was held.
7. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove the charges against the accused.
8. The accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.PC on 15.7.2015 wherein he admitted that he had arranged a party at his house on 10.5.2014 to celebrate his promotion and had invited all the team members. He admitted that the prosecutrix alongwith Jayant, Gunjan, Sarthak and Atif had attended the party and all of SC No.26/15. Page 3 of 39 them enjoyed food, drinks and 'Hukka'. He also admitted that the prosecutrix and Ruchi were got completely drunk and the prosecutrix started vomitting as well as crying and hence was laid on a bed in one of the rooms whereas they continued the party in another room. He also admitted that after some time, he had left the room saying that he is going to washroom. However, he denied that he had gone into the room where the prosecutrix had been laid on the bed and that he had tried to molest her or rape her. He further stated that a false complaint has been got filed against him by his team members as they had become jealous of him on his being promoted as Team Leader and were not prepared to tolerate him as their Team Leader as he was very strict with team members.
9. The accused examined himself as witness(DW1) in his defence.
10. I have heard Ld. APP for State, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused.
Submissions of the Counsels :
11. Ld. APP submitted that since the prosecutrix had got completely drunk in the party and was lying on the bed in drunken state without being conscious of what was happening around her, she did not know or realise what she was subjected to and for this reason she did not describe the incident specifically in her written complaint to the police and in her deposition before this court. She further submitted that it is when the prosecutrix was informed by SC No.26/15. Page 4 of 39 the other team members, who were also present in the party in the house of accused, about what they had seen accused doing to her that she became aware about the incident and decided to lodge the complaint against the accused. She argued that PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 had witnessed the incident with their own eyes and their deposition clearly shows that the accused had tried to commit rape upon the prosecutrix when she was lying on the bed in drunken state. She further argued that there is no inconsistency or contradiction in the testimony of these four witnesses and they have corroborated each other versions and hence are trustworthy witnesses. She argued that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s.376/511 IPC.
12. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused maintained that the accused has been falsely implicated by his team members as they were jealous of him and also were not happy with his way of functioning. He would submit that the delay of three days in reporting the matter to police has not been explained by the prosecution at all, which makes the prosecution case immensely doubtful. He submitted that the team members of the accused including the prosecutrix, PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 had utilised these three days in fabricating a false story in order to frame the accused falsely in this case. He argued that for this reason, there are only vague allegations in the complaint of the prosecutrix and she then turned hostile in court saying that she has filed the complaint on the basis of what was told to her by her colleagues in the office on 12.5.2014. He further argued that PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 are not reliable witnesses and they have spoken a blatant lie against the accused. He submitted that all of them SC No.26/15. Page 5 of 39 had consumed marijuana alongwith liquor and 'Hukka' in the party and therefore, they too were not in complete senses. He referred to some material downloaded from internet to canvass that using both these substances together make the individual drink beyond his/her tolerance level, thereby effecting the cognition power which results in alteration in short term memory, sensory perception, attention span, reaction time etc. He submitted that other side-effects of consuming marijuana are having hallucination, feeling of panic, anxiety, fear as well as trouble concentrating. He argued that in fact PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 have not witnessed any such incident as described by them in their deposition and they might have had hallucination, on account of consumption of marijuana and alcohol. He argued that two bottles of Vodka, eight Beers bottles together with marijuana and 'Hukka' had been consumed in the party which would fairly indicate that none of them could have been sober and in senses so as to watch and remember what was going around. He submitted that it is for this reason that there are material contradictions and improvements in their depositions. He argued that the evidence led by the prosecution is very shaky and based upon the imagination of the mind of the witnesses who had deposed and hence the accused cannot be convicted on such unbelievable evidence. He pleaded for acquittal of the accused.
Evidence lead by the parties :
13. The prosecutrix 'S' has been examined as PW1. She deposed that the accused was her Team Leader in May, 2014 and on account of his promotion, he had arranged a party at his house in Mahavir Enclave on 10.5.2014. He had invited all the team SC No.26/15. Page 6 of 39 members to the party. She further deposed that she alongwith another team member Atif reached the party venue at about 6.30 p.m. Other team members namely Ruchi, Jayant, Sarthak and Gunjan also reached there by 7 p.m. They enjoyed the food and drinks in the party. She got intoxicated on consuming liquor and slept. When she woke up in the morning at about 5.30 a.m., she found herself in the house of Gunjan, who was also present in the room. She realized that she was not wearing the upper inner slip.
She asked Gunjan about the same who told her that it must be lying somewhere in the room. She left the house of Gunjan at about 6.30 a.m. and reached her place of residence.
14. She further deposed that the next day was a Sunday and she visited her office as usual on Monday i.e. 12.5.2014. She heard from other team members who had also attended the party, that after she got drunk, there was an attempt to misbehaving with her by somebody. She became tense upon hearing the same. As her upper inner slip, which she was wearing, was also missing, when she had woken up in the house of Gunjan, she realized that somebody in the party had tried to misbehave with her. She went to the office of the Manager and narrated the whole thing to him. The Manager told her that she can lodge a complaint if she so desires. Accordingly, she alongwith HR Head Deepa Dass visited P.S. Palam Village where she submitted a written complaint Ex.PW1/A. From the police station, she was taken to hospital where her medical examination was conducted. She stated that accused Sanjeev had not come to the office on that day and was brought to the police station by the police officials from his residence. She proved her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC as Ex.PW1/B. SC No.26/15. Page 7 of 39
15. She was declared hostile at the request of Ld. APP. In the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP, she deposed that the contents of her complaint Ex.PW1/A are perhaps an imagination of her mind as she had found her upper inner slip missing. She was not certain that the incident mentioned in the complaint had in fact happened. She deposed that her statement to the Ld. M.M. Ex.PW1/B to the effect that when she opened her eyes slightly during sleep, she found accused Sanjeev standing in front of her, who had pulled down her jeans pant and then Gunjan tried to wake her up and Atif was feeling sorry for her, is based upon her imagination only on account of rumors heard by her in the office. She was not sure whether this incident had occurred. She admitted that she had received a call from the accused on Sunday night but did not recollect what he had told her. She could not say whether accused Sanjeev had attempted to have sex with her during that night.
16. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused, she admitted that her colleagues were making fun of her in the office and she was in a state of dilemma as well as in confusion till 13.5.2014 about the happenings of night in question. She deposed that she gave statement Ex.PW1/B to the Ld. M.M. on the basis of what she heard from her colleagues in the office and she cannot say with certainty what Jayant and Gunjan had said so to her. She admitted that she has lodged complaint in the police station in the state of dilemma and confusion arising of rumors in the office and what she had heard in the office from her colleagues.
SC No.26/15. Page 8 of 3917. PW2 is Jayant Dey. He was also a team member in the team led by the accused. He also had attended a party at the house of the accused on 10.5.2014. He deposed that the prosecutrix, Ruchi, Sarthak, Atif and Gunjan had attended the party besides himself. He reached the party venue at about 9 p.m. and the other persons had already reached there. They were already drunk at that time. He and accused Sanjeev went to fetch some more Vodka from the market. They returned at about 10 p.m. and started drinking again. He was in his senses. He stated that prosecutrix and Ruchi were completely drunk after about two or three hours. Prosecutrix started vomitting and crying and was not in her senses. They laid her on a bed in another room. He stated that Ruchi also was not in her senses but her husband came to pick her up at 12 midnight or 1 a.m. and they continued the party in another room.
18. He further deposed that after some time, accused told them that he is going to washroom and did not return from there for fifteen minutes. They went to look for him and found that the door of the room where they had laid prosecutrix on the bed was bolted from inside. They knocked on the door couple of times and accused Sanjeev answered saying that he is coming out but did not come out of the room for about ten minutes. They asked him what was going on inside the room and he replied that he was just trying to sleep. They told him that since they have come to his place for party and it does not look nice that he would sleep and they would party. They asked him to join the party again and he did so. After about thirty minutes accused Sanjeev again left them SC No.26/15. Page 9 of 39 with the same reason that he is going to washroom. Again after fifteen minutes Gunjan noticed that the room in which prosecutrix was, is bolted from inside. This time they decided to peep inside the room instead of knocking on the door. When they peeped from a slight opening on the lower portion of the door after pushing it inwards, they noticed that both prosecutrix and Sanjeev were without clothes and prosecutrix was still unconscious. Upon seeing this they decided to break open the lock and started pushing it forcefully. He also saw the accused putting on clothes to prosecutrix. After about five minutes of their forcefully pushing the door, Sanjeev opened the door. He was wearing all his clothes and prosecutrix was also in her clothes. He slapped the accused couple of times and started beating him. Gunjan intervened in the fight. They realised that it is not safe for prosecutrix to be in the house of accused and decided to send her alongwith Gunjan to her place. They called a cab and then Gunjan and prosecutrix left in the cab for Gunjan's residence. It was about 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. at that time and since it was not a convenient time to return to our respective homes, they decided to stay in the house of the accused till morning. Accordingly, he, Sarthak and Atif spent time in the house of accused till morning and left at about 6 a.m. or 7 a.m.
19. He furthr deposed that the next day i.e. 11.5.2014 was a Sunday. He attended the office on Monday as usual. Sarthak, Gunjan, Atif and prosecutrix had also come to the office but accused had not come to the office on that day. They decided not to tell anything to the prosecutrix about what had happened in the party but prosecutrix approached him and started enquiring from him about all that had taken place with her in the house of the SC No.26/15. Page 10 of 39 accused during that night. He realized that she knows everything about the same and hence reiterated everything in detail to her about what had happened during that night. He stated that the prosecutrix was shocked to hear about all this. They then contacted the Manager in the office and narrated the incident to him. He asked them to take requisite steps including the registration of FIR. They then reached P.S. Palam Village at about 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. where the prosecutrix submitted a written complaint, upon which the FIR was registered. He had also submitted his statement in writing in the police station.
20. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused, he admitted that their previous team leader Mohd. Haseeb Khan had to leave the services on account of average performance of their team. He denied that the accused used to rebuke him for his bad performance. He admitted that when accused was promoted as Team Leader, then all the team members asked him to throw a party. He deposed that he drank only Beer in the party at the house of accused. He has stated that when he accompanied the accused to the market to fetch more Vodka, they brought two bottles of Vodka only. He denied that they had also brought eight bottles of 'Hayward 5000' strong Beer. He admitted that a verbal altercation had taken place between him and the accused in the office on 06.5.2014. However, he added voluntarily that same was sorted out at that very time with the intervention of the Manager and thereafter they had gone for lunch together. He did not remember whether the clothes of the prosecutrix had got spoiled when she threw up.
SC No.26/15. Page 11 of 3921. He further deposed that he had given 3 or 4 slaps to the accused but denied that he had become so violent that he had given fist blows also to the accused. He stated that Atif had also given one or two slaps to the accused. He admitted that the face of the accused had swollen as a result of slaps given to him by them. He did not remember whether accused had started bleeding. When he left the house of accused Sanjeev, accused was sleeping and woke up at that very time. They did not provide any medical treatment to the accused during the night. He stated that they all including the accused may have slept at about 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. He admitted that they did not make a call at telephone no. 100 during that night. He has stated that the Manager only showed them the direction about how to proceed in the matter but did not provide them any kind of legal assistance. He alongwith the prosecutrix, HR Manager and Country Head had gone to the police station. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
22. Ms. Gunjan Sah has been examined as PW3. She deposed that she alongwith Sarthak reached the party venue at about 7 p.m. on 10.5.2014, whereas the prosecutrix, Jayant, Ruchi and Atif had already reached there. They started the party soon after her arrival and consumed drinks as well as 'Hukka'. She stated that the prosecutrix and Ruchi became high after taking few shots of liquor but were able to control themselves. They all danced together till about 8.45 p.m. Thereafter, the husband of Ruchi came to pick her up. They went downstairs alongwith Ruchi to say Bye to her whereas prosecutrix remained in the room. She stated that the prosecutrix was sometimes weeping and SC No.26/15. Page 12 of 39 sometimes crying. They were trying to calm her down. They kept her in a separate room so that she would sleep peacefully and continued the party in another room.
23. She further deposed that while they were partying, accused Sanjeev went to washroom. She also felt need to visit washroom after some time. She saw that the door of the washroom was open and the accused was not there. They found that the door of the room in which prosecutrix was sleeping had been bolted from inside. Atif and Jayant knocked on the door but the accused did not open the door. Accused opened the door after some time. Atif and Jayant had asked him what was happening inside and he replied that he had gone to see whether prosecutrix was alright. They told him why had he lock the door from inside and he reiterated that he has not done anything wrong. Thereafter, Atif and Jayant told her that the prosecutrix is not safe in the room and asked her to take prosecutrix to her PG accommodation. She tried to make call to hire a cab but since there was no signal inside the room where they were sitting, she had to go to verandah to make a call.
24. She further deposed that after arranging a cab when she came inside the room again, she found that Atif, Jayant and Sarthak were sitting in the room whereas accused Sanjeev was again missing. They found that the accused had again gone into the room where the prosecutrix was sleeping and had locked the door from inside. Atif, Jayant and Sarthak again started knocking the door but accused did not open the door. They told the accused that they would break open the door. Accused opened the door SC No.26/15. Page 13 of 39 after some time. Atif, Jayant and Sarthak started beating him. Jayant told her that he had seen accused putting on the pant of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, she went inside the room and found that the prosecutrix was not in complete senses but was completely dressed and her upper inner garment (breastier) was lying on the bed. She thought that the prosecutrix would feel bad about it and hence picked up the same and kept it in her purse. Thereafter, she alongwith Atif, Jayant and Sarthak brought the prosecutrix downstairs, took a cab and she took the prosecutrix to her PG accommodation. She further dposed that the prosecutrix woke up at about 9 a.m. or 10 a.m. when she received a call from her sister and told her that she has to leave. Prosecutrix told her that she is not wearing her breastier but she did not tell her what had happened in the previous night and told her that perhaps she had not worn the same. She was not sure whether to tell the prosecutrix about the incident or not. She further stated that she went to the office the next day. Prosecutrix had also come to the office the next day. They all met a teammate Ms. Sindhu and apprised her about everything. She advised them that they should tell the prosecutrix what they had seen during the night and accordingly, they told everything to the prosecutrix. They refused to do work in the office and made demand for termination of the accused. They told the Director of the company Mr. Kapil Khaneja that they want to file a case against the accused. However, the accused had not come to the office on that day.
25. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused, she deposed that she may have reached the office on 12.5.2014 at about 11.30 a.m. or 11.45 a.m. She met all her team SC No.26/15. Page 14 of 39 members as usual and they talked for about half an hour regarding what had happened at the party. They decided not to Login on that day before meeting Office Manager, Tinpreet Singh. She did not talk to the prosecutrix in the office on that day. She stated that their previous Team Leader was Mohd. Haseeb Khan and he left the services as he wanted to do some business in Hyderabad. She stated that they had consumed only one bottle of Vodka of brand 'Magic Moments'. She did not know whether the Beer was also arranged by the accused. She stated that the tobacco for the 'Hukka' was prepared by Sarthak. She could not tell whether four bottles of Vodka had been brought to the party. She did not remember whether Beer bottles of brand 'Hayward 5000' were also available in the party. She stated that they had been consuming 'Hukka' right throughout the party. Flavored tobacco was used in the 'Hukka' but did not remember everything. She denied that the tobacco was adulterated. She stated that there was no intoxicating effect of flavored tobacco but the males at the party had used 'Joint' in their cigarettes. She could not explain what exactly 'Joint' is. She denied that 'Hukka' was prepared from marijuana. She denied that the prosecutrix had vomitted and her clothes had got spoiled by vomitting and for that reason, she had to take off her clothes.
26. She further denied that she had kept the breastier of the prosecutrix with her with an ulterior motive to implicate the accused in this false case. She deposed that she was in complete senses till she left the house of the accused. She also stated that she had consumed 'Hukka' in some other party at the house of her another friend before reaching the house of accused on that day.
SC No.26/15. Page 15 of 39She admitted that at the time of entering into the house of accused, she had fallen down but explained that she had stumbled with an iron bar near the entrance door as a result of which she fell down. She denied that she had fallen down as she was drunk. She further denied all the suggestions put to her.
27. The examination in chief of PW4 Sarthak Parashar is almost on the similar lines as that of PW2 an PW3. I do not think it proper to mention here everything what he has stated in the examination in chief. He too has deposed that whilst they were enjoying party in one room and the prosecutrix was lying drunk in another room, accused had left the room twice on the excuse of going to washroom and on both occasions, he was not found in washroom but was found in the room where the prosecutrix was lying and had locked the door of the room from inside. He deposed that when they knocked on the door on the second occasion, there was no response. They continued to knock the door of the room but nobody opened it. There was a gap on the side of the door on its lower portion. He, Jayant and Atif peeped inside the room through that gap and saw that both Sanjeev as well as prosecutrix were not wearing their pants. The prosecutrix was lying on the bed whereas accused was having one foot on the bed and one hanging downwards. Prosecutrix was totally unconscious and the accused was pulling up her pant on her. He was also pulling up his own pant. Jayant and Atif started knocking the door voluntarily, as a result of which the door broke open. They asked the accused why he was doing so but the accused was without any reply. Gunjan started weeping upon watching this scene. Jayant and Atif started hitting the accused with fists. Jayant had become very angry and SC No.26/15. Page 16 of 39 he wanted to hit Sanjeev with a pan but they controlled him. Gunjan remained with the prosecutrixt for a few minutes and they went to the other room.
28. He further deposed that he, Jayant and Atif were deciding what to do. They decided not to call police but to inform their officer in the office. It was about 2.30 a.m. in the night at that time. They made calls to their Manager Mr. P.R. Deepak but he did not pick up the phone. They thought that it is not safe for Gunjan and prosecutrix to remain there for the night and accordingly, Gunjan took the prosecutrix alongwith her. He, Atif and Jayant stayed in the house of the accused and started watching a movie. They left accused's house at about 6 a.m. or 7 a.m.
29. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused, he deposed that they did not make call at telephone no. 100 from the house of accused as they were not aware exactly about what had happened inside the room with the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix was herself unconscious. He and Jayant had not consumed much liquor and were fully conscious. They had started taking liquor at about 9.15 p.m. They had consumed 'Hukka' and also smoked cigarettes. He had brought 'Hukka' and the 'Masala' used in it. He denied that he had brought 'Masala' laced with 'Ganja' for 'Hukka' on that day. He also denied that they had started taking liquor at 4 p.m. He deposed that they did not consume Beer in the party.
30. He further denied that he and Atif had decided to make Gunjan drunk so that she would stay in the house of accused SC No.26/15. Page 17 of 39 for the night. He also denied that the clothes of the prosecutrix had become dirty on account of her vomitting. He deposed that accused had got rashes on his cheek on account of slaps. Jayant had given one or two fist blows also to the accused but Atif did not give any fist blows to the accused. They did not provide any medical treatment to the accused during the night. They were watching movie till about 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. He denied that they have fabricated a false story to frame the accused in this case as they bore a grudge against him. He further denied all the suggestions put to him.
31. Atif Javed, the other team member, who was also in the party in the house of accused on 10.5.2014 has been examined as PW5. His examination in chief is more or less similar to that of PW2 & PW4 and need not be mentioned here in detail. It would suffice to note here the following portion of his examination in chief which relates to the incident in question when accused is stated to have been found in the room, where the prosecutrix was lying drunk, on the second occasion and had locked the door of the room from inside:
"After about 20 to 25 minutes, accused Sanjeev again left the room to go to the washroom and did not return for about 10 minutes. We asked Gunjan to check where Sanjeev is. She went out of the room and shouted therefrom saying that the door of the room in which Suruchi was sleeping is locked from inside. I alongwith Jayant and Sarthak immediately got up and found that the light of the room in which Suruchi was sleeping was on and its door was closed from inside. We pushed the door and an opening was created on the lower portion of the door. We peeped through that opening and saw that Sanjeev was standing in the SC No.26/15. Page 18 of 39 corner of the room and Suruchi was lying on the bed but her jeans pant had been taken off. We asked Sanjeev to open the door immediately. He took one or two minutes to open the door. Suruchi was totally unconscious but was wearing the jeans pant. However the button of the belt of the jeans pant was still open. When Sanjeev came out we asked him what was happening inside the room and quarreled with him. He told that he did not have any bad intention. We asked Gunjan to drop Suruchi at her home. She told us that she would take Suruchi to her PG accommodation. She called a cab and left alongwith Suruchi. I, Sarthak and Jayant remained in the house of accused till about 5.30 am."
32. In the cross examination, he admitted that Mohd. Haseeb Khan was their previous Team Leader and during his tenure, the performance of their team was not good, which became one of the reasons for Haseeb Khan to leave the company. He denied that he was second senior most person in the team after accused Sanjeev and stated that Ms. Sindhu Chandra was senior to him. He deposed that he and the prosecutrix had arrived at the party venue together. He admitted that they had asked accused to throw a party on being promoted to the post of Team Leader. He admitted that initially, there were four Beer bottles and two Vodka bottles in the party. He could not say whether the Beer bottles were of 'Hayward 5000' brand. He stated that Jayant had reached the party venue at around 8 p.m. Jayant alongwith Sanjeev had gone to market at about 9.40 p.m. or 9.45 p.m. and brought only one Vodka bottle from the market. They did not bring any Beer bottle. They denied that they had brought two Vodka bottles and eight 'Hayward 5000' Beer bottles. They had consumed two Vodka bottles and four Beer bottles before the accused and Jayant went to the market.
SC No.26/15. Page 19 of 3933. He could not tell the time when they started taking liquor. He admitted that they continued the party even after Ruchi had been laid on the bed when she vomitted. He added voluntarily that the party was stopped for a while till Ruchi's husband came and took her alongwith him. He stated that he does not smoke 'Hukka' and as such he had not consumed 'Hukka' in the party. He could not say whether 'Hukka' was adulterated. He admitted that cigarettes which he alongwith Jayant, Sarthak and Sajeev consumed were having 'Ganja' mixed in tobacco. He denied that there was marijuana in the 'Hukka. He denied that the accused was very strict with them as a Team Leader and wanted further promotion in the company. He denied that they had cocktail of Vodka and Beer. He was not sure whether the prosecutrix had also thrown up. He stated that as soon as he remembers, she did not vomit. He denied that the clothes of the prosecutrix had got spoiled by reason of vomitting. There is nothing else noteworthy in his cross examination.
34. These were the material witnesses examined by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. It would be apposite to mention her what the accused had to testify in his defence. He has examined himself as DW1. He deposed that upon being promoted to the post of Team Leader in M/s. Convergys, Gurgaon, in the end of April, 2014 his team members asked him to treat them with a booze party. He told them that he cannot take them to a Bar or Restaurant and accordingly, arranged a party for them at his residence i.e. House No.RZ-114, Street No.1, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi, on 10.5.2014. His team members namely Atif, SC No.26/15. Page 20 of 39 Ruchi, Gunjan, Jayant, Sarthak and the prosecutrix attended the party. He further deposed that Atif and the prosecutrix reached his house at about 6.30 p.m. on that day and they started the party with Beer. Thereafter, Gunjan and Sarthak also reached his house. Jayant reached there at about 8.30 p.m. He stated that Ruchi met him in the market at about 7 p.m. when he had gone to purchase liquor and he brought her to his house. They had started drinking liquor and consuming 'Hukka'. They also had marijuana which had been brought by Sarthak. He deposed that at around 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. the prosecutrix and Ruchi got high and they started vomitting. They left the prosecutrix and Ruchi in that room and shifted all the party material to another room and continued the party there. The alcohol stock which he had brought i.e. two bottles of Vodka and eight Beer bottles of brand 'Haywards 5000' were finished till 9.30 p.m. and then he alongwith Jayant went to the market and two more bottles of Vodka and eight more Beer bottles of 'Haywards 5000'.
35. He further deposed that he also got drunk and was feeling little lazy. After some time, Ruchi's husband came to his house and took Ruchi alongwith him. Prosecutrix was lying in the room as she was completely drunk. He also felt drowsy but continued to consume liquor alongwith jayant, Sarthak and Atif. Thereafter, Gunjan's friend (a boy) reached his house in the car and took Gunjan and prosecutrix alongwith him. Atif, Jayant and Sarthak started watching movie on his laptop whereas he slept. They woke him up at about 6.30 a.m. and then left.
36. In the cross examination, he denied all the suggestions SC No.26/15. Page 21 of 39 put to him by ld. APP. He further stated that he was not keeping well on Monday i.e. 12.5.2014 and hence could not go to office on that day. He was having stomach ache but did not visit any doctor as the problem was not so serious. He stated that he had not talked to the prosecutrix on 11.5.2014. He also stated that when police officials came to his residence at 11 a.m. on 12.5.2014 and took him to the police station, he came to know that a false complaint has been lodged against him.
Discussion :
37. Upon a bare perusal of the deposition of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused u/s.313 Cr.PC and his testimony as DW1, following facts came out undisputed between the parties:
(i) Accused was promoted to the post of Team Leader in M/s. Convergys, Gurgaon, in the end of April, 2014 and prosecutrix alongwith PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 were amongst his team members.
(ii) Upon being promoted as Team Leader, the team members of the accused asked him to throw a party.
(iii)The accused arranged a party for his team members at his residence i.e. House No.RZ-114, Street No.1, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi, on 10.5.2014.
(iv) The prosecutrix alongwith PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 attended the party.
(v) It was a liquor party and 'Hukka' was also
consumed.
(vi) The prosecutrix and Ruchi got drunk and were not in SC No.26/15. Page 22 of 39 senses. They also vomitted and were left in that room whereas the accused, PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 continued the party in another room.
(vii) Ruchi's husband reached there and took Ruchi alongwith him.
(viii) Prosecutrix was lying on a bed in the room in drunken state and was later on taken by PW3 to her PG accommodation where she woke up at 6.30 a.m. the next day.
38. The accused has himself deposed that prosecutrix and Ruchi got high at about 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. and started vomitting and were left in that room whereas they shifted the party material to another room where they continued the party. Therefore, it is manifest that after Ruchi was taken by her husband, the prosecutrix was lying drunk on the bed in one of the rooms whereas the accused, PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 continued the party in another room.
39. It is the clear and consistent statement of PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 that while they were partying in another room, accused had excused himself twice on the pretext of going to washroom and on both the occasions, he was found in the room where prosecutrix was lying in intoxicated state with the door of the room locked by him from inside. Nothing untoward was seen or suspected by them on the first occasion. However, they got suspicious when they found the door of the room, where the prosecutrix was lying in drunken state, locked from inside on the second occasion and the accused was not too seen anywhere in SC No.26/15. Page 23 of 39 the house. They knocked on the door violently and peeped through a slight opening on the lower portion of the door. They noticed that both the prosecutrix and the accused were without clothes and the prosecutrix was still unconscious. The jeans pant worn by the prosecutrix had been taken off. Accused also was not wearing his pant. They then saw the accused pulling the pant of the prosecutrix up her legs. They started pushing the door forcefully and the accused opened the door after about one or two minutes. They saw that the prosecutrix was still totally unconscious but was wearing the jeans pant, however, the button of the belt of her jeans pant was still open. PW2, PW4 & PW5 started beating the accused. They gave him slaps and fist blows. They asked why had he done so but the accused was without any reply.
40. I find that the testimonies of these four witnesses i.e. PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 is in sync with each other. They corroborate each other's version of the incident. No material contradiction or embellishment can be found in their deposition. Nothing could be elicited in their cross examination which may suggest that no such incident as mentioned by them had taken place and that they have deposed falsely.
41. It is true that the prosecutrix in her complaint Ex.PW1/A and in her statement u/s.164 Cr.PC Ex.PW1/B has stated that even though she had got drunk yet she could recall that she had heard banging on the door and had seen accused standing before her. However, in her deposition before this court as PW1, she has stated that she was completely unaware as to what SC No.26/15. Page 24 of 39 happened to her during her drunken state in the house of the accused and how did she reach the residence of PW3. She has further stated that she heard from her colleagues in the office on 12.5.2014 that after she had got intoxicated, there was an attempt to misbehave with her. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that since the testimony of the prosecutrix is totally different from her previous statement, she cannot be believed and her testimony has to be discarded.
42. I do not see any merit in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. It is everybody's case that the prosecutrix had got high and was lying in a drunken state in one of the rooms of the house of the accused. She was unaware of what was happening around her and was removed in the same state by PW3 to her place of residence. Therefore, her deposition before this court appears to be truthful and genuine. She has very fairly admitted in her cross examination that she was not certain whether the incident mentioned by her in the complaint Ex.PW1/A had, in fact, happened and she had made statement Ex.PW1/B to the Ld. M.M. on the basis of what she heard from the colleagues in the office. It is also manifest from the record that the prosecutrix learnt in the office on 12.5.2014 about what had happened to her in the house of the accused after she had got intoxicated and was lying on the bed in one of the rooms. Since the prosecutrix had not herself witnessed the incident, as she was not in her senses on account of drinkness, nothing turns on her testimony and her statements recorded during the course of investigation also need to be discarded. She has deposed correctly and truthfully before this court as to how did she gain knowledge about what she was SC No.26/15. Page 25 of 39 subjected to during her drunken state and by whom.
43. This also explains the delay of three days in lodging the complaint. Evidently, the prosecutrix does not know what she had gone through in the house of the accused and when she woke up the next day at 6.30 a.m., she found herself in the house of PW3. She even did not know how did she reach the house of PW3. Even PW3 did not apprise her about what had happened with her in the party. It is when she learnt in the office on 12.5.2014 that the accused had misbehaved with her when she was lying in drunken state, that she became aware of such incident and decided to lodge the complaint. Accordingly, she lodged the complaint against the accused on the same day. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the delay of three days in reporting the matter to police was not intentional and it has no adverse impact upon the prosecution case.
44. The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that in fact, no such incident as described by PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 had taken place in the party and their deposition is based upon their imagination influenced by hallucination which they had got on account of consuming of a cocktail of marijuana and alcohol, too appears to be baseless and without any merit. The Ld. Counsel has failed to point out anything in the deposition of these witnesses which may suggest that that they too had got intoxicated upon consumption of liquor and marijuana to the extent that they would not able to visualize what is happening around them and were having hallucination. Even the accused himself, appearing as DW1, has not said so in his deposition. He SC No.26/15. Page 26 of 39 has testified that they continued to consume liquor till Gunjan's friend reached his house in a car and took Gunjan and prosecutrix alongwith him and thereafter PW2, PW4 and PW5 started watching movie on his laptop whereas he slept. Hence the deposition of accused himself indicates that all these witnesses were in senses and had not got intoxicated to such an extent that they could not visualize or recall what was happening around them. Thus it cannot be said that PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 were not so sober as to witness the incident as described by them in their deposition.
45. I may note here that the suggestions have been given to each of these witnesses PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 that the clothes of the prosecutrix had got spoiled on account of her vomitting and for that reason, her clothes had to be taken off for washing purposes and she had to remain nude for some time. Each of these witnesses had denied these suggestions. It appears that this suggestion was put to these witnesses in order to explain the reason for the prosecutrix to have been without clothes for some time. Thus the accused himself admits that the clothes of the prosecutrix had been taken off and she was without her clothes for some time. However, the explanation put forth by him is not based upon the evidence on record. Only half hearted suggestions have been put to these witnesses in their cross examination in this regard. The accused himself does not say so in his deposition as DW1. It was for him to testify on oath regarding the said fact if it was true so that he could be cross examined by the prosecution on this aspect. Since he does not say anything in this regard in his deposition as DW1, the explanation put forward by him appears to be far from being true or correct. Therefore, the accused has failed SC No.26/15. Page 27 of 39 to explain how and in what circumstances was the prosecutrix without clothes in the party and his failure in this regard leads to the conclusion that whatever prosecution witnesses PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 have deposed in this regard is true and correct.
46. Though the Ld. Counsel for the accused had vehemently argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by his team members as they were jealous of him and were not happy with his way of functioning yet he has failed to point out any evidence on record which suggests so. The accused himself has not said a word in this regard in his testimony as DW1. Further, if at all, the team members of the accused were not happy with his becoming their Team Leader and were jealous of him, I see no reason that they would have asked him to throw a party for them or that they would participate in the party in the house of the accused. The party was organized by the accused himself on the asking of his team members and the prosecutrix as well as PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 had reached his house for the party on his invitation. The material consumed in the party like liquor etc. also arranged by the accused himself. So there is no indication from the evidence on record that the team members of the accused has conspired to frame the accused in a false criminal case.
47. Further it is not disputed on behalf of the accused that PW2 and PW5 had given slaps and fists blows to the accused when he came out of the room in which prosecutrix was lying in drunken state. If no incident, as described by PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 in their deposition, had taken place where was the reason or SC No.26/15. Page 28 of 39 occasion for them to beat the accused. It is not the defence of the accused that a quarrel had taken place between him and these witnesses wherein they beat him. The conduct of the accused in suffering the beatings given to him by these witnesses quietly and stoically also indicates that he was the perpetrator of something untoward.
48. Hence I hold that the occurrence as mentioned by PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 in their deposition had taken place in the house of the accused during the party on the intervening night of 10.5.2014 and 11.5.2014 and the accused was perpetrator.
49. The important issue which now arises for determination is as to what offence the accused had committed. It is manifest that he cannot be said to have committed the offence of attempt to rape as nobody had seen him so close to the body of the prosecutrix or in such a position to her body indicating that he is about to have sexual intercourse with her. The witnesses PW2, PW4 & PW5 while peeping through a small opening in the door of the room where the prosecutrix was lying in drunken state, had only seen that both the prosecutrix and the accused were without clothes and the prosecutrix was still unconscious. They then noticed that the accused was putting clothes on the body of the prosecutrix. This is all what they had witnessed. Hence, going by the account of what these witnesses have noticed, the accused can be said to have committed only the offence of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix, as described in section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
SC No.26/15. Page 29 of 3950. To decide the applicability of section 376 r/w section 511 IPC, it would be useful to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Koppula Vendkat Rao vs. State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC 602 :
"8. The plea relating to applicability of Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC needs careful consideration. In every crime, there is first, intention to commit, secondly, preparation to commit it, and thirdly, attempt to commit it. If the third stage, that is, attempt is successful, then the crime is complete. If the attempt fails, the crime is not complete, but law punishes the person attempting the act. Section 511 is a general provision dealing with attempts to commit offences not made punishable by other specific sections. It makes punishable all attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment and not only those punishable with death. An attempt is made punishable, because every attempt, although it falls short of success, must create alarm, which by itself is an injury, and the moral guilt of the offender is the same as if he had succeeded. Moral guilt must be united to injury in order to justify punishment. As the injury is not as great as if the act had been committed, only half the punishment is awarded.
9. A culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. The word "attempt" is not itself defined, and must, therefore, be taken in its ordinary meaning. This is exactly what the provisions SC No.26/15. Page 30 of 39 of Section 511 require. An attempt to commit a crime is to be distinguished from an intention to commit it; and from preparation made for its commission. Mere intention to commit an offence, not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence. The will is not to be taken for the deed unless there be some external act which shows their progress has been made in the direction of it, or towards maturing and effecting it. Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen upon considering the motive which suggest the choice. Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence. It differs widely from attempt which is the direct movement towards the commission after preparations are made. Preparation to commit an offence is punishable only when the preparation is to commit offences under section 122 (waging war against the Government of India) and section 399 (preparation to commit dacoity). The dividing line between a mere preparation and an attempt is sometimes thin and has to be decided on the facts of each case. There is a greater degree of determination in attempt as compared with preparation.
10. An attempt to commit an offence is an act, or a series of acts, which leads inevitably to the commission of the offence, unless something, which the doer of the act neither foresaw nor intended, happens to prevent this. An attempt may be described to be an act done in part execution of a criminal design, amounting to more than mere preparation, but falling short of actual consummation, and, possessing, except for failure to consummate, all the elements of the substantive crime. In other words, an attempt consist in it, the intent to commit a crime, falling short of, its actual commission or consummation/ completion. It may consequently be defined as that which if not prevented would have resulted in the full consummation of the act attempted. The illustrations given in section 511 clearly show the legislative intention to make a difference between the cases of a mere preparation and an attempt.SC No.26/15. Page 31 of 39
11. In order to find an accused guilty of an attempt with intent to commit a rape, court has to be satisfied that the accused, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desire to gratify his passions upon her person, but that he intended to do so at all events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part. Indecent assaults are often magnified into attempts at rape. In order to come to a conclusion that the conduct of the accused was indicating of a determination to gratify his passion at all events, and in spite of all resistance, materials must exist. Surrounding circumstances many times throw beacon light on that aspect."
51. It would also be apposite to note what the Supreme Court had said in this regard in Aman Kumar & anr. vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379 :
"In order to find an accused guilty of an attempt with intent to commit a rape, court has to be satisfied that the accused, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desire to gratify his passions upon her person, but that he intended to do so at all events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part. Indecent assaults are often magnified into attempt at rape. In order to come to a conclusion that the conduct of the accused was indicative of a determination to gratify his passion at all events, and in spite of all resistance, materials must exist. Surrounding circumstances many time throw beacon light on that aspect."
52. The distinction between attempt to rape and criminal assault has been aptly described in the English case R vs. James Lloyd (as referred to in the Supreme Court judgment Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 560). In the said case, while summing up the charge to the jury, Patterson J. observed :
"In order to find the prisoner guilty of an assault SC No.26/15. Page 32 of 39 with intent to commit a rape, he must be satisfied that the prisoner, when he laid hold of the prosecutrix, not only desire to gratify his passions upon her person, but that he intended to do so at all events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part."
53. Thus the most important point of distinction between the offence to commit rape and and to commit indecent assault is that there should be some action on the part of the accused which would show that he is just going to have sexual connection with the victim. Mere intention to commit the offence followed by preparation made for its commission but not followed by any further act cannot be said to constitute offence of attempt to commit the crime. The attempt to commit the offence differs from preparation to commit the offence. In the former, there is direct movement towards the commission of the offence after the preparations are over. In short, the attempt to commit an offence is the penultimate act in the series of acts towards commission of offence, which if not prevented, would result in full consummation of the act attempted.
54. In the instant case, it cannot be gainsaid that accused had entered that particular room where the prosecutrix was lying in drunken state and had locked the door of the room from inside only with an intention to have physical relations with her. He had also removed the clothes of the prosecutrix with the same intention. He had prepared the ground to fulfill his intention of having sex with the prosecutrix, but before he could go any further and make an attempt to fulfill his sexual desire upon the prosecutrix, banging on the door started and he had to retract. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused had SC No.26/15. Page 33 of 39 moved towards the fulfillment of his desire to satiate his lust by having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.
55. Removal of the clothes of the prosecutrix by the accused as well as removal of his own clothes are the acts only towards preparation for commission of crime. The evidence does not show that the accused had moved further by laying himself upon the body of the prosecutrix, touching his private parts with her private parts etc. It is manifest that before the accused could proceed towards the penultimate act of committing the offence, he got disturbed by banging on the door and the shouts of his guests and therefore, had to retract.
56. In a case decided by Bombay High Court on 12.8.1930 i.e. Ahmed Asalt Mirkhan's case, Criminal Appeal No.161 of 1930 [which has been cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Tarkeshwar's case (supra)], the complainant, a milkmaid, aged 12 or 13 years, who was hawking milk, entered the accused's house to deliver milk. The accused got up from the bed on which he was lying, chained the door from inside, removed his clothes, also removed girl's petticoat, picked her up, laid her on the bed and sat on her chest. He put his hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying and placed his private part against hers. There was no penetration. The girl struggled and cried and so the accused desisted. She got up, unchained the door and went out. It was held that the accused was not guilty of attempt to commit rape but of indecent assault.
57. The evidence in the case at hand falls well short of SC No.26/15. Page 34 of 39 that was available with the court in Mirkhan's case. As noted herein-above, there is no evidence on record that the accused herein had laid himself upon the body of the prosecutrix or had placed his private part upon her private part. Therefore, it is evident that the evidence does not suggest commission of offence of attempt to rape by the accused. He can be held guilty only for the offence of indecent assault envisaged u/s.354 IPC.
58. Thus the accused is convicted of the offence u/s.354 IPC.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 28.7.2015. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.26/15. Page 35 of 39
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.26/15.
Unique Case ID No. 02405R0031472015.
State Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, R/o 788/177, Lacknow Cantt. U.P. Also at :
RZF-1/13A, Gali No.1, Mahavir Enclave, Palam Colony, New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 21.3.2015.
FIR No.235 dated 13.5.2014.
U/s. 376/511/354 IPC.
P.S. Palam Village.
28.7.2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide judgment of even date, the convict has been convicted of the offence u/s.354 IPC.
2. Arguments heard on the point of sentence.
3. Ld. APP has submitted that the convict deserves harshest punishment as he outraged the modesty of a girl who was in drunken state and not able to offer any resistance. She submits that the convict would have proceeded further to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, if the other persons present in the party had not sensed something foul and had not banged upon the door of the room.SC No.26/15. Page 36 of 39
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict pleaded for leniency to the convict saying that he is a first time offender with clean past antecedents and good moral character. He further submits that the convict is an educated person, being graduate and whatever has been done by him, was under the influence of liquor. He further submits that the convict has learnt enough lesson from the trial of this case and there is no possibility of his indulging in any such act in future. He prayed that minimum possible sentence may be imposed upon the convict.
5. The convict was Team Leader in M/s. Convergys, Gurgaon. The prosecutrix alongwith PW2, PW3, PW4 & PW5 were his team members. The convict had invited them to his residence on 10.5.2014 for a booze party to celebrate his promotion as Team Leader. The prosecutrix got high after consuming some liquor and was laid on a bed on one of the rooms to sleep whereas the others continued the party in another room. It appears that the convict got desire to satiate his sexual lust. He excused himself from the party on two occasions for going to washroom but instead clandestinely slipped into the room, in which prosecutrix was lying in drunken state. The other persons present at the party got suspicious about his conduct and on the second occasion, while peeping through a small opening in the door, found that he had taken off the clothes of the prosecutrix and also that of himself.
Both prosecutrix and the convict were half nude and the prosecutrix was still unconscious.
6. It is thus evident that the convict had misbehaved and SC No.26/15. Page 37 of 39 launched indecent assault upon his guest whom he had invited for a party to his residence to celebrate his promotion. The convict knew that the prosecutrix is lying in drunken state and thus not in a position to offer any resistance. He had intentions in his mind to satisfy his sexual lust upon the prosecutrix but could not go beyond the removal of her clothes as the banging of the door started and he had to retract.
7. The fact that the convict committed indecent assault upon his own guest and that too when she was lying in a drunken state in his house makes the offence committed by convict very serious. It was his duty to take care of the prosecutrix after she got high and to protect her from any kind of assault from others. However, he himself became the tormentor and proceeded to sexually assault her. The honour and dignity of the prosecutrix got saved by dint of providence only.
8. In my opinion, the convict deserves very stern sentence and should not be let off lightly.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the convict is hereby sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. He shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months in case of default in payment of fine.
10. The fine recovered from the convict shall be paid to the prosecutrix.
SC No.26/15. Page 38 of 3911 The convict shall be entitled to benefit u/s.428 Cr.PC.
12. Copies of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to the convict.
13. Copy of this order on sentence be also sent to the Secretary, DLSA, South West, Dwarka, with the direction to award appropriate compensation to the prosecutrix.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 28.7.2015. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
SC No.26/15. Page 39 of 39