Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Vicky Sain on 15 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 88/2011
Unique Case ID: 02404R0308012007
State Vs. (1) Vicky Sain
S/o Ram Kishore
R/o WZ42, 2nd Floor,
Village Bodela, Vikaspuri,
Delhi.
Also at : Village Kueyan Kaar,
PO & PS Nareni
Distt. Banda, Uttar Pradesh.
(Convicted)
(2) Savitri
W/o Ram Swaroop
R/o Village Behan Pur,
PS Sarwai, Distt. Chhattarpur,
Madhya Pradesh.
(Acquitted)
FIR No. : 70/2007
Under Section : 363/366/428/342/376/506/120B
Indian Penal Code.
Police Station : Vikas Puri
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 12.02.2008
Judgment reserved on : 02.03.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 02.03.2012
State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 1
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts:
As per the allegations, on 22.02.2007 the accused Vicky Sain and Savitri entered into criminal conspiracy pursuant to which the accused Savitri brought the prosecutrix 'D' (name of the girl is withheld being the case under Section 376 IPC) aged about 15 years, to her house at WZ42, Village Budela, Vikaspuri and confined her in a room where the coaccused Vicky Sain was already present and thereafter the accused Savitri locked the room from outside and went away after which the accused Vicky Sain committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'D' after administering some stupefied intoxication to her. It is further alleged that after committing rape the accused Vicky Sain also threated the prosecutrix not to disclose about the incident to anybody or else he would kill her.
Case of prosecution in brief:
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.2.2007 the complainant /prosecutrix 'D' gave her statement to the police wherein she stated that she was residing at WZ42, Village Budela, Vikaspuri along with her family and was studying in class 9th in Government School at G Block. She further told the police that the accused Vicky Sain was also residing on the second floor of the same premises. According to the complainant on 22.2.2007 at about 1:00 State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 2 PM she returned home from her school when the sister of Vicky Sain, who used to reside behind her house, came to her and took her (complainant) to her house. She further told the police that at about 1:15 PM they both reached at her house where Vicky Sain was already present. According to the prosecutrix, the sister of Vicky pushed her inside the room and locked the room from outside after which Vicky committed rape upon her forcibly and without her consent. The complainant further told the police that thereafter at about 2 to 2:15 PM when there was noise outside the room, the sister of Vicky opened the door of the room after which Vicky ran away from the spot but she (complainant) was surrounded by the ladies of the area and they started quarreling with her after which she came to her house. The complainant also told the police that due to fear she did not tell to her mother about the incident but when her mother saw her quite (gum sum), she questioned her after which she narrated the entire incident to her mother and also told not to tell to her father about the same. She further told the police that due to fear and shame thinking that her mother may disclose about the incident to her father, on 22.2.2007 at about 11 PM she went to the latrine and consumed the tezaab / acid lying in the toilet after which she started feeling burning sensation on which she raised an alarm while crying and came back to her room. She further told the police that thereafter she was taken to the Surya Laxmi Hospital and thereafter she was State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 3 shifted to DDU Hospital. On the basis of the above complainant made by the prosecutrix 'D', rukka was prepared, present FIR was got registered and investigations were initiated. During investigations, both the accused Vicky Sain and his sister Shaviri were arrested and after completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE:
Charges under Section 363/366/342 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code were settled against both the accused Savitri and Vicky Sain. Further, charges under Section 376/328/506 Indian Penal Code were also settled against the accused Vicky Sain. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE:
In order to prove the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as eighteen witnesses.
Public Witnesses:
PW1 is the prosecutrix 'D' (name withheld). At the very outset I may observe that on account of the incident the prosecutrix suffered intense damage to her food pipe which had to be replaced by artificial one. Due to health condition she would not be examined at once and was examined on three dates. According to the State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 4 prosecutrix 'D' on 22.2.2007, she was studying in ninth class in G Block, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Vikas Puri, Delhi. She has deposed that the accused Vicky was residing on rent on the second floor of the same house and coaccused Savitri Devi is the sister of accused Vicky. According to the prosecutrix, she used to teach the children of accused Savitri Devi. She has further deposed that on 22.2.2007 after she returned from her school at about 1.00 PM, the accused Savitri Devi came to her house and took her to her (Savitri's) house which was just behind her (prosecutrix's) house. According to the witness as soon as she entered the house of accused Savitri, she (Savitri) bolted the door from outside. The accused Vicky was sitting inside the room who forcibly made sexual intercourse with her against her wishes on which she raised an alarm and on hearing the alarm, people from the neighbourhood gathered outside the house of accused Savitri and opened the door but on seeing the public, both Savitri and Vicky fled away from the spot. She has deposed that thereafter she came back to her house and was scared. She has deposed that she narrated the incident to her mother and asked her not not narrate the same to her father as she was very much scared.
The witness has further explained that she had narrated the incident to her mother only after she questioned her on seeing her quiet and scared. According to her, she felt that her mother narrated the incident to her father and therefore feeling ashamed, she State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 5 (prosecutrix) went to latrine at about 11.00 pm in the night of 22.02.2007 and consumed Tezaab after which she started feeling a burning sensation in her food pipe and chest due to which she cried and on hearing her cries her mother came there after which she fell down and became unconscious. She has further deposed that she was taken to Surya Hospital and when she regained her senses she found herself in the DDU Hospital where the police recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/A which bears her signatures at point A. The prosecutrix has deposed that her age at the time of the incident was about 15 years. She has further stated that she was also produced before Ld. MM where her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded. She has further deposed that the doctor had seized her underwear at DDU Hospital. She has identified both the accused as well as the case property in the court. She admits that her statement was recorded by the police on 25.2.2007.
In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that she was born in her village but did not attend any school there. According to her, she had taken admission in 6th class in government Sarvodaya Vidyalaya G Block Vikaspuri after studying upto 5th class in MCD school in village Budela. She deposed that she was residing at WZ42, Village Budela for the last 67 years. She has deposed that she had studied in village school till second or third class. According to her, she is not aware if the date State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 6 of birth given in her school certificate was given by her parents or not. She has denied the suggestion that her date of birth mention in the school certificate is incorrect and the year has been wrongly mentioned only to secure the admission in the school. She further denied the suggestion that at the time of incident she was aged between 1718 years and has voluntarily added that she was only 13 to 14 years of age. (Here the court has observed that by her physique the prosecutrix appears very week and on the date of her examination in December 2011 does not appear to be more than 17 to 18 years of age showing that at the time of the incident in the year 2007 she must be around 1314 years of age). According to the prosecutrix she was never on visiting terms or good relations with the accused Vicky Sain and has voluntarily added that she knew him only because he used to reside on the top floor. She has deposed that the children of Savitri used to take tuition from her and only they were on visiting terms with her whereas Vicky has nothing to do with her and was never on visiting terms with her or her family. She has also deposed that she went to the house of Savitri only on one or two occasions only to tell the day to day affairs of her children but she never gone inside the house of Savitri. She has denied the suggestion that on the date of incident she had never went to the house of Savitri or that the accused Vicky was not present in the said house. She has denied the suggestion that there was no incident of forcible sexual State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 7 intercourse with her or that she had not raised any alarm or people from the neighbourhood never gathered outside the house and opened the door. The prosecutrix has denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated Vicky and Savitri or that she had been on visiting terms with Vicky and was well acquainted with him and her parents were not aware of the same but later when they came to know she consumed acid. According to the witness at the time when her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was recorded, she was not in a physically fit state to speak and hence she does not know what exactly was recorded but she admits that she consumed the acid of her own.
PW2 Anand Mishra is the father of prosecutrix. He has deposed that on 22.2.2007 his daughter 'D' was aged about 15 years. According to him at about 11.30pm while he was sleeping, he heard the cries of his daughter 'D' on which he immediately went got up and found that 'D' had consumed Tezab lying in the latrine and on the way to Surya Hospital she became unconscious. He has deposed that after giving initial treatment at Surya Hospital, she was rushed to DDU hospital and thereafter to AIIMS for further treatment. The witness has deposed that police came to Surya Hospital on 23.2.2007. According to the witness, the accused Vicky was arrested on his pointing out vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He identified both the accused Savitri and Vicky Sain in the court.
State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 8
On leading question put by Addl. PP with due permission of the court, the witness has admitted that accused was arrested on 25.2.2007.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that his daughter (prosecutrix) was born in Delhi but he does not have her birth certificate. According to him he got his daughter 'D' admitted in Government Sarvodaya Vidyalaya Vikas Puri in sixth class on the basis of school leaving certificate of the previous school. He has deposed that he has four children, his eldest daughter is Nirmala Mishra whose year of birth 1991 and his second daughter 'D' was born in the year 1992. According to the witness in the year 2007, his daughter Nirmala was studying in class ninth and his son Mahesh who is 34 years younger to 'D' (prosecutrix) was studying in seventh class. He has deposed that he got married in the year 1985 and Nirmala was born in village and he has no birth certificate either of Nirmala or of Mahesh. He has denied the suggestion that he has given wrong date of birth of the prosecutrix 'D'.
PW7 Suman Khanna has proved the admission register according to which the prosecutrix 'D' was admitted in 6th class on 15.4.2002 and as per record her date of birth is 21.9.1991. The photocopy of relevant pages of admission register is Ex.PW7/A. She has also brought the last school leaving certificate in respect of the State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 9 prosecutrix copy of which is Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C. She has proved the certificate dated 23.4.2007 issued by Ms. Renu Khurana, Vice Principal of the school cetifying the date of birth of 'D' as 21.9.1991 which certificate is Ex.PW7/D. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted and unrebutted.
PW8 Aas Raj has deposed that in the year 2007 he was running a kiryana shop at his house i.e. WZ74 Village Budela. Initially this witness has turned hostile but when he was cross examined by Addl. PP he has admitted that the prosecutrix D was residing at ground of house bearing no. WZ42, while the accused Vicky was residing on the second floor of the same house. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted and unrebutted.
PW9A Smt. Janki is the mother of the prosecutrix. She has deposed that she used to cook food at houses in F Block, Budela Vikaspuri and in the year 2007 her daughter prosecutrix 'D' was studying in 9th class. Initially this witness has stated that she does not want to tell anything and wants to close the case but on cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP with due permission of the court, the witness has admitted that the police recorded her statement on 25.2.2007 where she told the IO that on 22.2.2007 her daughter was State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 10 sad (gumsum) and on her asking her daughter narrated that on 22.2.2007 at about 12:45 PM when school was over and the reached at house at about 1:00 PM, the sister of accused Vicky who used to reside in their house came at about 1.15 PM and took her to her house and there Vicky was present. She further admitted that she told the IO that thereafter her daughter 'D' was left inside a room along with Vicky and locked the rook from outside and inside the room Vicky committed rape upon her daughter 'D' and thereafter at about 7.15 PM after hearing the noise, the sister of Vicky opened the door and Vicky ran away while the prosecutrix came out. The witness has further admitted that thereafter she told these facts to her husband and her daughter consumed acid in toilet on 22.2.2007 after which she was taken to hospital. She has deposed that the accused Vicky had committed rape upon her daughter against her wishes and sister of accused facilitated Vicky by locking the door of the room from outside. She has identified both Vicky and his sister in the court. Witness has denied the suggestion that she has been threatened or won over by the accused and for this reason only she had submitted that she does not wish to proceed with the case. She has deposed that she does not recollect what date of birth of the prosecutrix was given in the village school. She does not know if any certificate was obtained from village school for getting her admitted in Delhi school. She has denied that at the time of incident the State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 11 prosecutrix was aged about 1718 years and has voluntarily added that she was aged around 14 years at that time. She has denied the suggestion that she has deposed falsely on the aspect of age of the prosecutrix. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted and unrebutted.
PW16 Sukhbir Tyagi has deposed that he is residing at the given address along with his family and he is an electrician by profession. He deposed that he has property bearing No. 56 in village Budela, Vikaspuri, New Delhi which is in the name of his father. According to him they used to let out their rooms on rent in the aforesaid house. He has deposed that he knew Savitri Devi, W/o Sh. Ram Swaroop, R/o village Behanpur, District Chattarpur, M. P. as she resided in their house as tenant in the year 2006 along with her family. The witness has also deposed that after the registration of this case of rape, she left his house in the month of February, 2007 at some unknown place but he does not know where she started living thereafter. According to the witness he came to know that the brother of Savitri Devi had committed rape upon a girl. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity. Medical / Forensic Evidence:
PW9 Dr. Narender Solanki has proved the MLC Ex.PW9/A prepared by Dr. Ramit Dhalla and has identified his State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 12 handwriting and signatures at point A, having seen him writing and signing during the course of official duties. According to the witness as per the endorsement of Dr. Ramit there was no evidence to suggest that patient was incapable of performing sexual act.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that neither the MLC was prepared in his presence nor the patient was examined in his presence however he was on day on that day.
PW13 Dr. Shashi Lata Kabra has proved the MLC No. 3827 pertaining to the prosecutrix 'D' was prepared by Dr. Geetanjali which is Ex.PW13/A. She has identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Geetanjali at point A on Ex.PW13/A, having seen her writing and signing during the course of official duties. The witness has also identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Aruna Singh at point B on Ex.PW13/A, having seen her writing and signing during the course of official duties. She has proved that as per endorsement on the MLC, the patient was having an alleged history of ingestion of acid (toilet cleaner) and patient was having history of vomiting and blood coming in vomitus. According to the witness as per the endorsement of Dr. Geetanjali, the gyne examination was conducted on 24.2.2007 at 11:40 PM and the patient was having history of intake of toilet clear and history of sexual contact three times with her consent. She further deposed that on State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 13 examination, the patient was conscious and well oriented and on local examination, hymen was found torn, P/V admitted one finger while there was no injury marks on genitalia. She further deposed that two slides were prepared made from posterial fornix and under garments were sealed. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused.
PW14 Dr. Arpita Gangwani has deposed that on 23.02.2007 Dr. N. Jain was working as Unit Head Medicine at DDU hospital and under his supervision Dr. Pawan has admitted the patient in ward No. 9. The endorsement of Dr. Pawan in this regard is at point C on Ex.PW13/A and bearing the name of Dr. N. Jain and Dr. Pawan is encircle at point C. In her cross examination by Ld. defence counsel the witness has admitted that she did not examine the patient personally and she has deposed only on the basis of official record.
Police / Official Witnesses:
PW3 Ct. Mewa Ram has deposed that on 25.2.2007 he along with ASI Manjeet Kaur and HC Ram Lal apprehended the accused Vicky Sain from Budela Park and got him medically examined at DDU hospital and received two sealed pullandas containing blood sample and the undergarments of the accused which he handed over to ASI Manjeet Kaur who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW3/A. State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 14 During his cross examination by Addl. PP, the witness has deposed that accused Vicky Sain was arrested on the pointing out of Anand Mishra and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that on 26.2.2007 the accused Vicky took the police party at WZ56, Village Budela and shown the place where he committed the rape upon the prosecutrix after which a pointing out memo Ex.PW3/C was prepared. He further admits that the accused had made his disclosure vide memo Ex.PW3/D. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted and unrebutted.
PW4 HC Ram Lal has deposed that on 25.2.2007 he was posted at police station Vikas Puri and he along with HC Sita Ram went to DDU Hospital where HC Sita Ram recorded the statement of prosecutrix 'D' and prepared the rukka. According to the witness HC Sita Ram handed over the rukka to him and he got the FIR registered.
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, the witness has admitted that on receipt of DD No. 4A he along with HC Sita Ram had gone to DDU Hospital where duty constable handed over two pullandas to him one of which contained two slides and the other contained the undergarments of the prosecutrix which were seized by HC Sita Ram vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He further admits that after registration of the FIR, he came at the spot along with WASI Manjeet State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 15 Kuar after which he along with ASI Manjeet Kaur, Ct. Mewa Ram and Anand Singh went to Budela Park where on the pointing out of Anand, the accused Vicky was arrested. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted and unrebutted.
PW5 HC Sita Ram has deposed that on 23.2.2007 he was posted at Police Station Vikaspuri and on that day on receipt of DD No. 19A Ex.PW5/A, he along with Ct. Devender reached at Surya Laxmi Hospital where they found the prosecutrix admitted since 22.2.2007 after consuming acid and was rushed to DDU hospital later. According to this witness, they went to DDU hospital and obtained the MLC of the prosecutrix. He moved application Ex.PW5/B for recording the statement of prosecutrix but she was declared unfit by the doctor. According to the witness, on 25.2.2007, on receipt of DD No. 4A Ex.PW5/C, he again went to DDU hospital and recorded the statement of prosecutrix as she was declared fit for statement by the doctor. He also received the exhibits from the concerned doctors which were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. He thereafter prepared rukka Ex.PW5/D and got the FIR registered through Ct. Devender and further investigations was referred to WASI Kamajeet.
In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness has admitted that the doctor had informed him that the age of State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 16 the prosecutrix was 15 years. He further admits that Ct. Ram Lal was sent along with Rukka to the police station and not Ct. Devender. He further admits that the name of officer to whom further investigation was entrusted was WASI Manjeet Kuar who came to the spot.
In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he recorded only one statement of the prosecutrix which is dated 25.2.2007 and thereafter the investigation was handed over to WASI Manjeet Kaur.
PW6 ASI Vikram Singh has deposed that on 25.2.2007 he was posted at police Station Vikas Puri as duty officer when HC Ram Lal brought a rukka on which basis of which he recorded the present FIR copy of which is Ex.PW6/A. He also made endorsement upon the rukka vide memo Ex.PW6/B bearing his signatures at point A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted and unrebutted.
PW10 W/HC Usha Rani has deposed that on 26.4.2007 she was posted at Police Station Vikas Puri and on that day the MHCM handed over five sealed pullandas along with FSL and RC No. 33/21/07 along with priority letter for depositing the same in CFSL Kolkatta. According to the witness, she deposited the said exhibits in CFSL Kolkatta on 30.4.2007 and obtained the receipt State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 17 which she handed over to the MHCM. According to the witness, so long as the exhibits remained in her custody, they remained intact and were not tampered. She has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard and the entire testimony has gone uncontroverted and unrebutted.
PW11 W/Ct. Poonam has deposed that on 9.1.2008 she was posted at Police Station Vikaspuri as constable. On that day she participated in investigations of this case along with HC Ram Lal and went to Rohini Court Room No. 305 where the accused Shavitry had surrendered.
In her cross examination by Addl. PP with due permission of the court, the witness has admitted that the arrest memo Ex.PW11/A and personal search memo Ex.PW11/B bears her signatures at point A. She has further admitted that disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW11/C bears her signatures at point A. Witness has identified the accused Savitri in the court.
In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that IO interrogated Savitri for about half an hour inside the court room on 9.1.2008. She has deposed that IO prepared some of the documents relating to Savitri while sitting in the police station.
PW12 Ms. Rekha (Ld. MM) has deposed that on 12.4.2007 while posted at Rohini Courts, an application for recording State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 18 the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC was marked to her in the present case which application was fixed for 19.4.2007. According to the witness, on 19.4.2007 she recorded the statement of prosecutrix D under Section 164 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW1/B. PW15 HC Harsahay has deposed that on 25.02.2007 HC Sita Ram had deposited two parcels duly sealed with the seal of CMO, DDU hospital along with sample seal containing two slides and undergarments of victim 'D'. According to the witness he received the same vide entry No. 2259 of register No. 19. He has deposed that on the same day ASI Manjeet Kaur had deposited blood sample and undergarments of accused Vicky Sain duly sealed with the same seal which he received vide entry No. 2260 of register No. 19, copy of entries is Ex.PW15/A. According to the witness, on 25.04.2007 he send the exhibit to FSL Kolkatta through WHC Usha Rani vide RC No. 33/21/07. He has deposed that on 31.03.2008 he obtained the FSL result duly sealed with the seal of FSL Kolkatta and handed over the result to HC Ram Lal vide RC Ex.PW15/B. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused.
PW17 ASI Ram Lal has deposed that on 28.11.2007 he was working as HC at PS Vikaspuri and on that day further investigations of the present case was handed over to him. According to him after perusal of case file, he found that coaccused Savitri Devi could not be arrested in this case. He deposed that after taking State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 19 permission from the senior officers, he along with W/HC Usha Rani went to village Kanojiyanpurva, District Chattarpur, M.P. to trace co accused Savitri Devi where her devar Ramesh Kumar Sain met him but Savitri Devi was not found available there at that time, therefore he issued notice U/S 160 Cr. P.C. to Ramesh Sain for the appearance of Savitri Devi on 05.01.2008. He has further deposed that on 05.01.2008, Savitri did not appear before him or in the police station and she moved an application for her surrender before Ld. Mahila Court and thereafter on 09.01.2008 she had surrendered before Ld. MM when he along with W/Ct. Poonam attended the court. According to the witness the coaccused Smt. Savitri was arrested in this case formally vide memo Ex.PW11/A and L/Ct. Poonam conducted her personal search vide memo Ex.PW11/B and after throughly interrogation her disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW11/C. He has deposed that thereafter medical examination of accused Savitri was got done through L/Ct. Poonam vide MLC Ex.PW17/A and thereafter she was got sent to JC. According to the witness W/HC Usha Rani had deposited the exhibits at FSL Kolkatta before handing over the investigations to him but her statement U/S 161 Cr. P.C. could not be recorded by the previous IO therefore he recorded her statement U/S 161 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, he prepared supplementary challan after necessary investigations and added Section 342/306/328/307/34 IPC in the supplementary charge sheet. State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 20 He also collected the FSL result from FSL and same was got deposited before Ld. Court which is Ex.PW17/B. The witness has identified the accused Savitri Devi in the court. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
PW18 W/ASI Manjeet Kaur has deposed that on 25.02.2007 she was posted at Police Station Vikaspuri and on that day after registration of the present case, the further investigations was handed over to her. According to the witness, on the directions of the SHO she reached at DDU hospital where HC Sita Ram along with prosecutrix and her parents met her. She has further deposed that she recorded the statement of parents of the prosecutrix, HC Sita Ram, HC Ram Lal U/S 161 Cr. P.C. and a started the search of accused and reached at the house of the accused but he could not be traced. The witness has deposed that one secret informer informed her that the accused Vicky Sain was moving in the area of Budella village and thereafter she formed a raiding party comprising herself, HC Ram Lal and one Anand and reached at village Budella and they found the accused Vicky Sain moving in Budella park and at the instance of Anand, the accused Vicky Sain was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW2/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B after which he was sent to DDU hospital for his medical examination through Ct. Mewa Ram vide MLC Ex.PW9/A. According to the witness, Ct. Mewa Ram handed over the exhibits of State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 21 the accused to him which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A and thereafter the accused Vicky Sain was throughly interrogated on 26.02.2007 and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW3/D. The witness has deposed that the accused Vicky Sain led them at the room of Smt. Savitri, W/o Ram Swaroop, i.e. at WZ 56, Village Budella, Vikaspuri and pointed out the room where he committed rape upon prosecutrix on 22.02.2007 after calling her by Smt. Savitri. He thereafter prepared the memo of pointing out in this regard which is Ex.PW3/C. The witness has deposed that on 12.04.2007 he moved an application vide Ex.PW12/A before Ld. MM Ms Barkha Gupta for getting the statement of the prosecutrix recorded U/S 164 Cr. P.C. which was allowed and thereafter on 19.04.2007 Ld. MM recorded her statement U/S 164 Cr. P.C. which is Ex.PW1/B. On 23.04.2007 she collected the birth certificate of prosecutrix from government Sarvodya Kanya Vidhyala, Vikaspuri, Delhi which is Ex.PW7/D which shows the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 21.09.1991. According to the witness, on 25.04.2007 she send the exhibits to FSL Kolkatta through HC Usha and also made efforts to trace the co accused Smt. Savitri but she could not be traced till then therefore she prepared the charge sheet against accused Vicky Sain. She has further deposed that in view of the statement of the prosecutrix U/S 164 Cr.PC, she added 328 IPC in the charge sheet. Witness has State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 22 correctly identified the accused Vicky Sain in the court.
In her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has deposed that the first statement of prosecutrix was not recorded by her and has clarified that the first statement dated 25.02.2007 was recorded by HC Sita Ram. According to the witness, she visited the house in which the coaccused Savitri was resided and tried to find out some eye witness to the incident but no person came forward to give his statement as a eye witness of the incident. She did not visit the place of occurrence along with the prosecutrix as she was not keeping well. The witness has deposed that she had recorded the disclosure statement of accused Vicky Sain dated 26.02.2007 and states that even after recording the disclosure statement of the accused Vicky Sain, she could not find any eye witness of the occurrence. She admits that she did not collect any other supporting evidence regarding the actual date of birth of prosecutrix. According to the witness, she had only collected the school certificate dated 23.04.2007 showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 21.09.1991. The witness has deposed that recording of the statement U/S 164 Cr. P.C. of the prosecutrix got delayed because she was not feeling well. According to the witness after recording the first statement of the prosecutrix dated 25.02.2007, she (witness) visited her residence to collect evidence regarding the taking of toilet cleaner but she did not find any bottle of such toilet cleaner. The State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 23 witness has deposed that the parents and family members of the prosecutrix also did not hand over to her any such toilet cleaner bottle. The witness as deposed that she did not find any evidence in the house of the coaccused Savitri Devi relating to the occurrence nor there were any blood stains or semen stains, bed sheets or any garments in the room of accused Savitri Devi. The witness has denied the suggestion that she did not carry out proper investigations into the case. She also denied that she had wrongly submitted charge sheet against the accused Vicky Saini or that no case against the accused persons was made out.
Statement of Accused and Defence Evidence:
After completing the prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure in which all the incriminating evidence / material was put to them which they have denied. They have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. However, the accused have not examined any witness in defnece. FINDINGS:
I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and my findings are as under:
State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 24 Identity of the accused:
The identity of both the accused is not disputed as they were previously known to the victim since the accused used to reside in the same house as that of the prosecutrix, on the top floor. The accused Vicky has been specifically named in the FIR whereas allegations have been made against his sister coaccused Savitri. Both of them have been correctly identified by the prosecutrix in the court. Even otherwise both the accused do not dispute their identity. In this background I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the identity of both the accused. Age/ consent of prosecutrix:
According to the school record duly proved by PW7 Suman Khanna, the prosecutrix 'D' was admitted in the school in class 6th on 15.4.2002 and as per admission register her date of birth is 21.9.1991. The photocopies of the relevant pages of the admission register is Ex.PW7/A and the copy of the last school leaving certificate is Ex.PW7/B & Ex.PW7/C. PW7 Suman Khanna also proved the certificate dated 23.4.2007 issued by Ms. Renu Khurana, Vice Principal, Sarvodya Kanya Vidhyalaya certifying the date of birth of prosecutrix as 21.9.1991 which certificate is Ex.PW7/D. The said witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 25
Ld. defence counsel has vehemently argued that according to the prosecutrix she was born at her native village and also studied there upto 2nd or 3rd standard after which she took admission in a school in Delhi in class 6th whereas according to her father Anand Mishra (PW2) she was born in Delhi in the year 1992. He has argued that according to Anand Mishra (PW2) he was married in the year 1985 and his eldest daughter Nirmala was born in the year 1991. It is also argued that PW2 Anand Mishra has failed to prove the actual date of birth of prosecutrix from her native village and it is writ large that they have concealed the actual date of birth when the prosecutrix was admitted in the school at Delhi. It is further argued that by any reckoning the age of the prosecutrix was not less than 1718 years at the time of alleged incident and even when she was cross examined in the court in the year 2011, from her physical appearance she appeared to be more than 20 years.
I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel and at the very outset I may observe that when the prosecutrix appeared before this court in December 2011 for her deposition she appeared to be very weak and frail and this Court made a specific observation to the effect that she appeared to be hardly 1718 years of age (on the date of her examination). Therefore, under no circumstances can the Ld. Defence Counsel argue now that she appeared to be more than 20 years since even as State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 26 per the date of birth as evident from the school record, she would hardly have been between 1920 years.
Secondly, there is no reason forthcoming as to why the school certificate which is based upon the previous transfer certificate should not be relied upon. According to the said date of birth certificate the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 21.9.1991 and therefore under these circumstances on the date of incident i.e. 22.2.2007 she was 15 years 5 months of age (i.e. below 16 years).
Thirdly, in so far as PW2 Anand Mishra father of the prosecutrix is concerned, this Court has observed that he is a totally confused person perhaps on account of his physical ailment having suffered two hear attacks after the incident (as per the testimony of prosecutrix). I may observe that as per the testimony of Anand Mishra (PW2) father of prosecutrix, his first daughter Nirmala who is elder to the prosecutrix, was born in the year 1991 whereas the prosecutrix was born in the year 1992. According to him in the year 2007 (year of incident) Nirmala was studying in class 9th and his third child namely Mahesh was in class 7th. The testimony of PW2 Anand Mishra cannot be relied upon since no document / school record with regard to Nirmala, prosecutrix 'D' or Mahesh have been placed on record. On the contrary the documentary record of the prosecutrix showing her date of birth as 1991 and therefore the date of birth of Nirmala being earlier to 1991 cannot be ruled out more so because on the date of examination of State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 27 Anand Mishra in September 2009, Nirmala was already married and therefore could be less than 18 years. Even otherwise, if we go by the testimony of Anand Mishra, then according to him the prosecutrix was born in 1992 (not in 1991 as given in school record). Hence, the testimony of Anand Mishra on this aspect cannot be relied upon.
Lastly, the mother of the prosecutrix Janki has been examined as PW9A who has been exhaustively cross examined on the aspect of age of the prosecutrix wherein she has reaffirmed that on the date of incident the age of prosecutrix was 14 years and has denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix was 17 to 18 years of age on the date of incident.
In view of the above discussion, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that on the date of incident the prosecutrix 'D' was a minor aged between 1516 years and there is no reason to disbelieve the date of birth given in the school record. Further, the aspect of consent becomes immaterial in view of the fact that she was below 16 years of age at the time of the incident (Section 375 sixthly makes the consent immaterial if prosecutrix is below 16 years of age).
Medical evidence:
PW9 Dr. Narender Solanki has proved the MLC of the accused Ex.PW9/A showing that there is nothing to suggest that the patient (accused) is not capable to perform sexual act. State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 28
PW13 Dr. Shashi Lata Kabra has duly proved the MLC of the prosecutrix 'D' Ex.PW13/A. According to the witness, the prosecutrix was brought to the hospital with alleged history of ingestion of acid / toilet cleaner and also with the history of vomiting and blood coming in vomitus after which she was referred to Surya Laxmi Hospital and primary treatment was given there. She has proved that on local examination, hymen was found torn, P/V was admitted one finger. She further proved that two slides were prepared which were made from posterial fornix and under garments were sealed. Here, I may observe that Dr. Aruna has not appeared to prove what was told to her by the prosecutrix regarding previous sexual contacts nor the prosecutrix has been confronted with the same. Hence, the said aspect as mentioned in the MLC is liable to be ignored.
PW14 Dr. Arpital Gangwani has proved that gynecological examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at about 11:40 PM on 24.2.2007 i.e. after two days of the incident with alleged history of intake of toilet cleaner (Acid) after sexual contact. The medical evidence therefore proves the intake of acid / toilet cleaner after sexual contact.
Forensic Evidence:
As per the CFSL Report Ex.PW17/B (admissible in evidence as per Section 293 Cr.PC) four parcels were sent for examination and the panty belonging to the prosecutrix establishes the State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 29 presence of semen but not the slides and the undergarments of the accused.
Here, I may observe that the gynecological examination of the prosecutrix was conducted virtually after two days of the incident, when the slides having prepared after two days. It is natural that after two days no semen could be detected in the vaginal swab. However, in so far as the undergarments of the prosecutrix are concerned, since they were not washed and had been handed over to the investigating officer in the same condition, it is for this reason that the semen stains could be detected on it, which corroborates the oral version of the prosecutrix and establishes the sexual contact between the accused and the prosecutrix.
Abetment of the offence of rape by the accused Savitri:
It is the case of the prosecution that a conspiracy was hatched between the accused Vicky Sain and his sister Savitri (co accused) and in furtherance of their common intention Savitri called the prosecutrix at her house where Vicky Sain was already present and thereafter she locked both prosecutrix 'D' and Vicky Sain in a room after which Vicky Sain has committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Savitri had been falsely implicated only because of her relations with the accused Vicky. He has in this regard placed his reliance on the case of Ram Narain Popli State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 30 Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2003 Cri. Law Journal 4801 (Supreme Court). Ld. defence counsel also placed his reliance on the judgment in the case of Soni & Ors. Vs. State, 117 (2005) DLT 135, Delhi High Court.
I have considered the submissions made and also the authorities relied upon by the Ld. Defence Counsel and observe that in so far as the case of Soni & Ors. Vs. State is concerned, the facts are totally different and the authority has no application to the facts of present case. I may also observe that the only evidence on record is the sole testimony of the prosecutrix apart from the Medical and Forensic evidence. No independent public witness who was allegedly present outside the house of Savitri has been produced in the Court. I may further observe that the first statement (Ex.PW1/A) of the prosecutrix was recorded by the police on 25.2.2007 which is almost three days after the incident and before the said statement was recorded the prosecutrix during her gynecological examination on 24.2.2007 had also disclosed to the doctor that she had sexual contact three times with her consent and last sexual contact was before two days i.e. on 22.2.2007 pursuant to which she had consumed acid/ toilet cleaner. This being the background, no doubt the allegations against the accused Vicky are specific but the possibility of the accused Savitri, the sister of the main accused Vicky Sain, being falsely implicated, cannot be ruled out. It also does not appear probable that Savitri who was residing with her State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 31 children on rent in a one room tenement, would have taken the risk of spoiling her reputation by getting the prosecutrix to her house and forcibly locking her in a room with the accused. Rather, the possibility of allurement of the prosecutrix by the accused Vicky pursuant to which the prosecutrix went to the house of Savitri appears more probable.
In view of the above, I hereby hold that in so far as the allegations against the accused Savitri are concerned it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix there being no independent corroboration from any other source. Therefore benefit of doubt is being given to Savitri for the same.
Allegations against the accused Vicky Sain:
Case of the prosecution is that the accused Vicky Sain was having a onesided affair with the prosecutrix and wanted to rope her into a love affair and therefore in pursuance to the same he and his sister Savitri hatched a conspiracy pursuant to which the accused Savitri brought the prosecutrix to her house to give tuition to her children where Vicky was already present and left her there. In so far as the accused Savitri is concerned, this court has already given a benefit of doubt to her. However, in so far as the allegations against the main accused Vicky Sain are concerned, the prosecutrix being a minor (below 16 years of age), her consent, if any, becomes immaterial. Even otherwise had the prosecutrix consented to her relations with the State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 32 accused, she would not have attempted suicide by consuming the toilet cleaner (acid).
Before proceeding to analysis the evidence on merits, it is necessary to consider the testimonies of the prosecutrix, relevant portion of which is as under:
"On 22.2.2007, I was studying in ninth class in G Block, Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Vikas Puri, Delhi. Accused Vicky, now present in court, was residing on rent on the second floor of our house. Accused Savitri Devim now present in court (correctly identified) is the sister of accused Vicky. I used to teach the children of accused Savitri Devi. On 22.2.2007 after I returned from my school at about 1.00 PM, accused Savitri Devi came at my house and took me to her house just behind our house. As soon as I entered the house of accused Savitri, she bolted the door from outside. Accused Vicky was sitting inside the room. Accused Vicky forcibly made sexual intercourse with me against my wishes. I raised the alarm. On hearing my alarm, people from the neighbourhood gathered outside the house of accused Savitri and opened the door. Accused Savitri fled away from the spot. On seeing the public, accused Vicky also fled away from the spot. I came back to my house. I was scared. I narrated the incident to my mother and asked her not not narrate the same to my father as I was very much scared. Again said, I had narrated the incident to my mother only after she questioned me on seeing me quiet and scared. I felt that my mother narrated the incident to my father and feeling shame, I went to latrine at about 11.00 pm in the night of 22.02.2007 and consumed Tezaab, I started feeling a burning sensation State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 33 in my food pipe and chest due to which I cried. On hearing my cries, my mother came there. I then fell down and became unconscious. I was taken to Surya Hospital. When I regained my senses I found myself in the DDU Hospital. Police met me in the DDU Hospital and recorded my statement Ex.PW1/A which bears my signatures at point A. My age at the time of the incident was about 15 years. I was also produced in court and my statement was recorded by the court under Section 164 Cr.PC. Carbon copy of the statement is Mark A. The doctor had seized my underwear at DDU Hospital....." Specific observation was also made by this Court during the cross examination of the prosecutrix observing that by her physique the prosecutrix appears very weak and does not appears to be more than 1718 years of age.
The prosecutrix has been exhaustively cross examined by Ld. defence counsel on the aspect of her age. She has denied the suggestion that the date of birth in her school certificate was wrongly wrongly mentioned by her parents only to secure her admission or that she was between 16 to 17 years of age at the time of incident. According to the prosecutrix, the accused Vicky Sain was known to her as he was residing on the second floor of the same premises and has denied the suggestion that she and her family was on visiting terms with Savitri. She has admitted that she had gone to the house of Savitri on couple of occasions but has stated that she never went inside the house and remained outside her house. The prosecutrix has denied the State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 34 suggestion that there was no forcible intercourse or that she has not raised any alarm. She has also denied the suggestion that the person from the neighbourhood had never gathered outside and open the door on which both the accused have fled from the spot. She has further denied the suggestion that as she was on visiting terms with Vicky Sain and after her parents came to know about the same, she on account of embarrassment consumed the acid / toilet cleaner. She has stated that at the time of recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, her physical condition was not good and hence she does not know what exactly was recorded but she admits that she had consumed the Tezab / acid of her own.
Now coming to the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section164 Cr.PC (Ex.PW1/B) which has been duly proved by PW12 Ms. Rekha (Ld. MM). The relevant portion of the same is as under:
"mai bayan karti hoon ki ek din mai apne school se 12:45 minutes par wapis aai to us samay ghar par meri mummy nahi thi par meri behen thi. Us samay Vicky ki behen hamare ghar par aai tatha mujhe kahne lagi ki maine apne ghar ki sazawat bahut achhi ki hai aur mujhe apne sath apne ghar par chalne ko kaha. Pahle maine mana kiya lekin bad me uske barbar kahne par mai uske sath chali gai kyonki ja woh apne bhai ke ghar par us se milne aati thi toh hum sabhi se bhi baten kar leti thi. Usne apne ghar pahunch kar darwaja khol kar mujhe ander ki taraf dhakka de diya aur bahar se darwaja band kar diya wa tala laga diya. Vicky ander pahele se hi mauzud tha. Fir usne meri ichcha ke bina State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 35 mujhse jabardasti ki va galat kaam kiya. Jab maine shor machane ki koshish ki to usne mujhe chaaku dikha diya aur kaha ki agar maine shor kiya wa usse apne sath galat kaam nahi karne diya to wo mujhe jaan se maar dega. Fir Vicky galat kaam mere saath karne ke baad apni behen ke sath bhag gaya. Fir mai roti - roti apne ghar par aai lekin maine dar ki wajah se kisi ko bhi kuch nahi bataya lekin jab mujhe bleeding (yani pesab ki jagah se khoon ana suru hua) toh maine usse (Vicky) ko kaha ki mai ghatna ke bare mai apne mata pita ko bata rahi hoon toh iss par Vicky ne mujhe jaan se parne ki dhamki di wa raat ko mujhe tezaab pila diya.
Vicky hamare ghar ke uper hi raheta hai. Uske baad kya hua mujhe pata nahi. ...."
Before evaluating the above statements of the prosecutrix on the touch stone of truthfulness and credibility, it is necessary to briefly discuss the guiding principles of law as laid down by the various Courts.
I may observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Biram Lal reported in 2005 AIR (SC) 2327 has held that:
"........It is not the law that in every case version of the prosecutrix must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence on record. It all depends on the quality of the evidence of the prosecutrix. If the court is satisfied that the evidence of prosecutrix is free from blemish and is implicitly reliable, then on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction can be recorded. In appropriate cases, the Court may look for corroboration from independent State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 36 sources or from the circumstances of the case before recording an order of conviction. In the instant case the allegations were that the accused during night entered the prosecutrix room and committed rape on her, the evidence of the prosecution was found worthy of credit and implicitly reliable....."
In the year 2006 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha Ram reported in AIR 2006 SC 381 had observed that:
"...... The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of a victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault and to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is settled law that corroboration is a condition for Judicial Reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix and is not a requirement of law but a guidance of Prudence under the given circumstances. Even minor contradiction or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be a ground for throwing out, an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
It was further observed by the Hon'ble Court that:
"..... No girl of self respect and dignity who is conscious of her chastity having expectations of married life and livelihood would accuse falsely against any other person of rape, much less against State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 37 her father, sacrificing thereby her chastity and also expose the entire family to shame and at the risk of condemnation and ostracization by the society. It is unthinkable to suggest that the mother would go to the extent of inventing a story of sexual assault of her own daughter and tutor her to narrate a story of sexual assault against a person who is no other than her husband and father of girl, at the risk of bringing down their social status and spoil their reputation in the society as well as family circle to which they belong to....."
Further, in the case of Vishnu Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2006 AIR (SC) 508 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"..... In the traditional nonpermissive bounds of society of India, no girl or woman of selfrespect and dignity would depose falsely implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and jeopardizing her future prospect of getting married with suitable match. Not only she would be sacrificing her future prospect of getting married and having family life, but also would invite the wrath of being ostracized and outcast from the society she belongs to and also from her family circle. From the statement of the prosecutrix, it was revealed that the accused induced her to a hotel by creating an impression that his wife was admitted in the hospital and that he would see her first and then drop the prosecutrix at her residence whereas, in fact, she was not admitted in the hospital. On the pretext of going to Hospital, he took her to a hotel, took her inside a room, closed the door of the room, threatened her to finish her State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 38 if she shouted and then forcibly ravished her sexually. A clear case of rape, as defined under Section 375 Clause third of IPC was found established against the accused...."
Also in the case of Bharwada Boginbhai Hirji Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1) it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complaints of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society.
Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix in this background which also finds due circumstantial support from the testimonies of her father Anand Mishra (PW2) and mother Janki (PW9). Here I may observe that during the course of trial the mother of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix herself wanted the case to be closed as they were feeling harassed. The observations made by the Ld. Predecessor of this court during the examination of PW9 Janki (mother of prosecutrix) and the observations made by this court on 16.12.2011 during examination of PW1 (prosecutrix) are relevant. On 16.12.2011 the prosecutrix pleaded to the court that she had already State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 39 suffered immense social and mental harassment and trauma and her family consisting of younger brothers and sisters had suffered enough because of the incident. She also informed that after the incident her father had suffered two heart attacks and now she herself had no further capacity either to come to the court or to anywhere else to fight for her rights in connection with the incident. In this background, the Court vide order dated 16.12.2011 directed the GNCT of Delhi to ensure that she and her family are provided professional counselling.
It is further evident that the statement of the prosecutrix had been recorded by the Ld. MM on 19.4.2007 i.e. after two months of the incident for which a valid explanation is forthcoming since prior to the same, the prosecutrix was hospitalized and was undergoing treatment. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC the prosecutrix does not state that large number of persons had gathered outside who rescued her but states that after committing the rape upon her the accused Vicky Sain and also the accused Savitri ran away and she came back to her house while crying. The aspects on which the prosecutrix is consistent in her testimony before the Court and in her prior statements are, firstly that she was 15 years of age at the time of the incident. Secondly that on 22.2.2007 she had gone to the house of Savitri where the accused Vicky Sain was present. Thirdly Vicky Sain made physical relations with her on 22.2.2007 which was without her consent. Fourthly that after the incident she came back home and was extremely disturbed, ashamed and State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 40 scared because the accused Vicky Sain had threatened her with dire consequences due to which reason she immediately did not disclose about the incident to anybody except to her mother and that too when her mother pressurized her after seeing her disturbed. Fifthly when she (prosecutrix) started bleeding from her vagina after the incident, then out of fear and shame she consumed acid/ toilet cleaner after few hours (during intervening night). Lastly in her initial statement made to the doctor and thereafter to the police the prosecutrix has been most consistent and stated that she had voluntarily consumed the acid/ toilet cleaner out of shame and fear on account of the threats extended by the accused. It was for the first time before the Ld. MM she has stated that Vicky Sain who was residing on the top floor of the house where she was residing had made her drink acid (Vicky ne mujhe jaan se marne ki dhamki di aur raat ko mujhe tejab pila diya uske bad kiya hua mujhe nahi pata) which version she does not support when she testified in the court, explaining that she was not in a proper physical and mental statement at that time.
Admittedly after the prosecutrix had consumed the acid, her food pipe and other internal organs had suffered immense damage on account of the same and had to be reconstructed. An artificial pipe had to be put after which the prosecutrix has now become disabled perhaps for life and is required to undergo regular endoscopy for her survival. On three earlier occasions when she came to the court her examination could State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 41 not be conducted on account of her precarious health condition. It is writ large that when she was produced before Ld. MM on 19.4.2007, her physical and mental condition was not proper, a fact she has also clarified in her testimony before the court. Therefore, in so far as the aspect of consumption of acid / toiled cleaner is concerned, it is the prosecutrix herself who has consumed the same and the version given by her to the Magistrate in this regard is liable to be discarded.
Now coming to the aspect of consent of prosecutrix 'D'. At the very outset I may observe that the prosecutrix being a minor below 16 years of age, her consent if any becomes immaterial. Further had the prosecutrix consented for the relationship, rather than consuming the acid/ toilet cleaner to end her life, she would have disclosed the incident to her friends or family or to the family of the accused to escape social stigma, which is not the case. The subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix reflects the lack of her consent when the accused had made physical contact with her on 22.2.2007 and her desperate act was the result of feeling of extreme shame and indignation and humiliation. What is further to be noted is that the prosecutrix did not make any complaint against the accused at the first instance. Rather, she chose to cause harm to herself which is only indicative of indignation, disgust and frustration which she suffered after the incident and is reflective of her lack of consent.
I may also observe that Dr. Aruna has not appeared before the State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 42 court to depose to prove the MLC and what has been mentioned by her in the MLC regarding the consent of the prosecutrix and thereafter two prior sexual contacts, does not stands established beyond reasonable doubt. Even otherwise the prosecutrix in her testimony before the Court also does not make any mention of the same nor the prosecutrix has been crossexamined by the accused on this aspect nor it is the case of the accused that he has any prior sexual contact with the prosecutrix. In fact in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused Vicky Sain has admitted that he resided on the ground floor bearing No. WZ42, Village Bodola, Vikaspuri, above the house of the prosecutrix, but has denied that the prosecutrix used to teach the children of his sister Savitri. Before the court, he has simply stated that he did not commit any wrong with the prosecutrix and when confronted with the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC, he simply stated that the allegations made by the prosecutrix were incorrect and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
In view of my above discussion, I hereby hold the the testimony of the prosecutrix and allegations made by her against the accused, is worthy of credit and reliable and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Even otherwise, it is improbable that a young girl aged 15 years would make false allegations against the accused by inventing a false story and by putting her own reputation and that of her family at stake and that too when she herself has suffered immense physical damage after the incident. No girl of self respect and dignity State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 43 and conscious of her chastity would falsely implicate the accused after causing harm to herself. Hence, it stands established that the accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'D' after wrongfully confining her in the house of Savitri.
No reason for prosecutrix to falsely implicate accused Vicky Sain:
Further, after going through the evidence on record, it is evident that there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any history of enmity between the family of the prosecutrix and the accused or that the prosecutrix and her family would have any reason to falsely implicate the accused Vicky Sain in this case. Though, the possibility of the Savitri being implicated only because she was the sister of the main accused, cannot be ruled out. It is also not the case of the accused that the prosecutrix had any motive to falsely implicate him. Here I may observe that the prosecutrix is a school going girl who was financially assisting her parents by giving tuitions and according to her version was also giving tuition to the children of Savitri due to which reason the accused Vicky Sain came to her contact also because the accused was residing on the top floor of the same premises. This being the background, there is no reason to doubt the testimony of the prosecutrix. Threats extended by the accused to the prosecutrix:
The case of the prosecutrix is that the accused Vicky Sain had threated to kill her and it was on this account that she did not disclose State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 44 about to the incident to her parents or anybody else and feeling extremely scared and ashamed, she had consumed the acid/ toilet cleaner at night within few hours of the incident. The aspect of consuming acid stands established and proved from the medical record and the physical condition of the prosecutrix speaks itself for which no further evidence is required. The prosecutrix has proved that she had consumed the acid on account of the threats extended by the accused Vicky Sain which allegations the accused has not been able to effectively controvert and rebut, rather in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused has simply brushed aside the incident and denied of having any physical / sexual contact with the prosecutrix which is contrary to the medical and forensic evidence placed on record. Under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations of threats having extended to the prosecutrix by the accused Vicky Sain.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 45
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigations conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officer. The identity of both the accused Savitri and Vicky Sain has been established. It stands established that at the time of the incident the prosecutrix 'D' was a minor being below 16 years of age. It also stands established that the prosecutrix 'D' was residing at WZ42, Village Budela, Vikaspuri along with her family and was studying in class 9th in Government School at G Block. It further stands established that the accused Vicky Sain was residing on the second floor of the same premises and the accused Savtri Devi was residing on rent behind the house of the prosecutrix at Village Budela, Vikaspuri, Delhi. It also stands established that on 22.2.2007 the accused Vicky Sain committed sexual assault/ rape upon the prosecutrix State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 46 'D' after wrongfully confining her in the room of accused Savitri at village Budela, Vikaspuri. It stands established that after committing the rape, the accused Vicky Sain threatened the prosecutrix 'D' not to disclose anybody about the incident or else he would kill her. It stands established that after the incident the prosecutrix returned home highly perturbed and was extremely disturbed and quite a fact which was noticed by her parents. It further stands established that her mother namely Janki Mishra inquired from the prosecutrix the reason for her behaviour. It stands established that initially the prosecutrix did not disclose anything to her mother but later when she started bleeding from her vagina, she informed her mother about the incident. It further stands established that soon thereafter the prosecutrix feeling a sense of shame, indignation and humiliation consumed acid/ toilet cleaner after few hours (i.e. at about 11 PM on 22.2.2007). It also stands established that on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix her parents rushed her to Surya Laxmi Hospital where she was provided first aid treatment after which she was referred to DDU Hospital. It stands established that on account of the incident the prosecutrix suffered life threatening injuries and her food pipe and internal organs have got permanently impaired/ damaged. It also stands established that the food pipe of the prosecutrix had to be replaced and an artificial food pipe was inserted as a result of which she has now become disabled for life, requiring regular endoscopy at least twice a month for her survival. The subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix establishes the State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 47 lack of her consent when the accused had made physical contact with her on 22.2.2007. It further stands established that even otherwise the prosecutrix being a minor below 16 years of age at the time of the incident her consent becomes immaterial.
There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, MLC, etc. The testimony of the prosecutrix 'D' has been found to be credible, reliable and authentic and also finds support from the circumstantial, medical and forensic evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative in so far as the accused Vicky Sain is concerned. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 48 trustworthy and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence and the witnesses of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link, in so far as the accused Vicky Sain is concerned.
However, in so far as the allegations regarding abetment and criminal conspiracy against the accused Savitri are concerned, the same have not been proved and substantiated by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and therefore benefit of doubt is being given to Savitri Devi for the same.
In view of the above discussions, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Savitri who is hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 120 B IPC, Section 363 read with 120B IPC, Section 366 read with 120B and Section 342 read with 120 B IPC. In so far as the accused Vicky Sain is concerned, I hereby hold him guilty for the offence under Section 342 read with 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code. However, in so far as the offence under Section 363/366/328 read with 120 B is concerned, I hereby acquit him of the same.
Be listed for arguments on sentence qua the accused Vicky Sain on 7.3.2012.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 02.03.2012 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 49 IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Sessions Case No. 88/2011 Unique Case ID: 02404R0308012007 State Vs. (1) Vicky Sain S/o Ram Kishore R/o WZ42, 2nd Floor, Village Bodela, Vikaspuri, Delhi. Also at : Village Kueyan Kaar, PO & PS Nareni Distt. Banda, Uttar Pradesh. (Convicted) (2) Savitri W/o Ram Swaroop R/o Village Behan Pur, PS Sarwai, Distt. Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh. (Acquitted) FIR No. : 70/2007 Under Section : 363/366/428/342/376/506/120B Indian Penal Code. Police Station : Vikas Puri Date of conviction: 02.03.2012 Arguments heard on: 7.3.2012 Date of sentence: 15.3.2012 State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 50 APPEARANCE: Present: Sh. P.K. Verma, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Vicky Sain in judicial custody with Sh. R.P.S. Sirohi Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide a detailed judgment dated 2.3.2012 the accused Vicky Sain has been held guilty of the offence under Section 342 read with 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code but he has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 363/366/328 read with 120 B Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Savitri has been acquitted of the charges under Section 120 B IPC, Section 363 read with 120B IPC, Section 366 read with 120B and Section 342 read with 120 B IPC.
The prosecutrix 'D' a minor aged about 1516 years in the present case was residing at WZ42, Village Budela, Vikaspuri along with her family and was studying in class 9th in Government School at G Block at the time of the incident. The accused Vicky Sain was also residing on the second floor of the same premises. As per the allegations on 22.2.2007 at about 1:00 PM the prosecutrix 'D' returned home from her school when the sister of Vicky Sain namely Savitri who used to reside behind her house, came to her and took the prosecutrix to her house. It is alleged that at about 1:15 PM when they both reached at her house Vicky Sain was already present and State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 51 Savitri pushed her inside the room and locked the room from outside after which Vicky committed rape upon her forcibly without her consent. Thereafter at about 2 to 2:15 PM when there was noise outside the room, the sister of Vicky opened the door of the room after which Vicky ran away from the spot but the prosecutrix was surrounded by the ladies of the area who started quarreling with her after which she returned to her house. The prosecutrix did not tell her mother about the incident but when her mother saw her quite, she questioned her after which she narrated the entire incident to her mother and also requested her not to tell to her father about the same. Due to fear and shame thinking that her mother may disclose about the incident to her father, on 22.2.2007 at about 11 PM she went to the latrine and consumed the tezaab/ acid lying in the toilet after which she started feeling a burning sensation on which she raised an alarm while crying and came back to her room.
The prosecutrix 'D' had appeared before this Court and in her testimony she made specific allegations against the accused Vicky Sain. Vide detailed judgment dated 2.3.2012 this Court had held that the testimony of the prosecutrix and allegations made by her against the accused, was worthy of credit and reliable and there was no reason to disbelieve the same. This Court had also observed that it is improbable that a young girl aged 15 years would make false allegations against the accused by inventing a false story and by State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 52 putting her own reputation and that of her family at stake and that too when she herself suffered immense physical damage after the incident and no girl of self respect and dignity and conscious of her chastity would falsely implicate the accused after causing harm to herself. It was also observed that had the prosecutrix consented for the relationship, rather than consuming the acid/ toilet cleaner to end her life, she would have disclosed the incident to her friends or family or to the family of the accused to escape social stigma, which is not the case. The subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix reflected the lack of her consent when the accused had made physical contact with her on 22.2.2007 and her desperate act was the outcome of the feeling of extreme shame and indignation and humiliation which she was suffering. What is further to be noted is that the prosecutrix did not make any complaint against the accused at the first instance. Rather, she chose to cause harm to herself which was only indicative of indignation, disgust and frustration which she suffered after the incident and was reflective of her lack of consent. This Court further observed that the prosecutrix being a minor below 16 years of age at the time of the incident her consent, if any would otherwise become immaterial.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix; the medical and forensic evidence on record, this Court has while acquitting the accused State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 53 Savitri Devi of the charges under Sections 120 B IPC, Section 363 read with 120B IPC, Section 366 read with 120B and Section 342 read with 120 B IPC, held the accused Vicky Sain guilty of the offence under Section 342 read with 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code but he has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 363/366/328 read with 120 B Indian Penal Code.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict a young boy of 24 years of age is 7th class pass and is a Barber by occupation. He has a family comprising of aged widow mother, four elder brothers and three married sisters. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict Vicky Sain is a young boy of 24 years and is not involved in any other case. It is also argued that the convict is the helping hand of his family. Ld. counsel has also pointed out that the convict is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 25.2.2007 . He requests that a lenient view be taken against the convict.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the convict, by his act, has defiled the sanctity of the prosecutrix, a minor girl which has left her shattered and physically as well as psychologically wrecked. He has requested for the maximum sentence to be imposed upon the convict submitting that he does not deserve any leniency keeping in view the offence committed by him. State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 54
I have considered the rival contentions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the judgment of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gangula Satya Murthy reported in JT 1996 (10) SC 550, observed as under:
"Courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity.."
In the case of Shri Bodhisattwa Gautm Vs. Miss Subhra Chakraborty reported in AIR 1996 SC 922, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "Rape destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisions."
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1470 that:
State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 55
Socioeconomic, status, religion, race caste or creed o the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the court. It is necessary for the court to keep in mind that the object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. The Courts are expected to operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. [Ref:
Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2006 IV AD (Crl.) SC 78].
The offence of rape is barbaric in nature where the victim is ravished like an animal for the fulfillment of desire and lust of another man. As observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat a State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 56 murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim whereas the rapist degrades and defiles the soul of a helpless female. As per the official statistics a total number of 568 cases of rape have been reported in Delhi alone in the year 2011 out of which only 2% have been committed by strangers. If unreported cases were to be included, the figure would be much high but most of the cases are not reported by the victims because of the various reasons such as family pressure, behaviour of the police, the unreasonably long and unjust process and application of law and resulting consequences thereof.
Of late crime against women generally and Rape in particular is on the increase and ironically society appears to be unconcerned, showing little or no concern for honour of women. It is in this background that this court is required to treat the issue with more sensitivity. The object of sentence is not only required to be reformative but it should also be punitive, preventive and deterrent. In the present case, the convict Vicky Sain committed rape upon a helpless girl aged 15 years pursuant to which the victim chose to end her life in a state of desperation and shame by consuming acid/ toilet cleaner but was saved due to timely medical attention but not before her food pipe and other internal organs got permanently imparied/ damaged and had to be reconstructed and replaced with an artificial food pipe as a result of which the prosecutrix has now become disabled for life, requiring regular endoscopy at lease twice a month State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 57 for her survival. This being the background, I am convinced that the convict deserves no mercy and any leniency shown to the convict would be highly misplaced. I hereby award the following sentences to the convict Vicky Sain:
1. The convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.50,000/ for the offence under Section 342 read with 376 Indian Penal Code. The total fine amount of Rs.50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand), if recovered, shall be paid to the prosecutrix 'S' under Section 357 Cr.P.C. as compensation. In default of the payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. For the offence under Section 506 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) years and fine to the tune of Rs.1,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure shall be given to the convict for the period already undergone by him during the trial, as per rules.
State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 58
Coming now the victim/ prosecutrix 'D', keeping in view the physical and psychological condition of the prosecutrix and in an attempt to provide Restorative and Compensatory Justice to the victim who after the incident has discontinued her education, this Court had vide order dated 16.12.2011 granted an interim compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One lac) to the prosecutrix. As per the report of GNCT of Delhi the said amount has already been disbursed to the prosecutrix who is also being provided with professional psychological counselling. Further, in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 16.12.2011 the prosecutrix has also been linked to Gender Resource Center (Mission Convergence) for vocation training so as to enable her to become financially independent so that she is not a burden on anyone. In continuation to the aforesaid I hereby award a compensation to the prosecutrix to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/ (two Lacs) out of which Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One lac) has already been awarded as interim compensation vide order dated 16.12.2011 and disbursed to the prosecutrix. I direct the GNCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary (Home) to disburse the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (now awarded) to the prosecutrix 'D' D/o Anand Mishra, R/o WZ42, Village Budela, Vikas Puri, Delhi preferably within a period of one month from today. Copy of this order is directed to be placed before the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi for compliance under State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 59 intimation to this Court.
The convict is informed that he has a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has been apprised that in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost and another be attached with his jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 15.3.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
State Vs. Vicky Sain, FIR No. 70/07, PS Vikas Puri Page No. 60