Delhi District Court
State vs . Pawan on 5 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II (NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
Sessions Case No.1167/2009
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0295142009
State Vs. Pawan
S/o Sh. Sumer
R/o Village Sandela,
Police Station Sandela,
Mohalla Bhoolantola,
Distt. Hardoi, U.P.
Also at:
K-453, Ground Floor,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
(Convicted)
FIR No. : 332/09
Police Station: Saraswati Vihar
Under Section: 363/376 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to Sessions Court: 13.11.2009
Date on which orders were reserved: 7.3.2011
Date of decision: 5.4.2011
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts
1. The allegations against the accused Pawan are that on 27.6.2009 in the morning at House No. K-453, Shakurpur, Delhi, he kidnapped a minor girl (aged about 13 years) namely 'G' (name of the girl is withheld as this is a case under Section 363/366/376 St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 1 of 35 Indian Penal Code) from the lawful custody of her guardian with the intention and knowledge that she will be subjected to illicit intercourse and thereby committed rape upon her punishable under Section 363/366/376 Indian Penal Code.
Brief facts of prosecution case:
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.06.2009 the complainant Jai Bahadur came to police station and gave his statement to ASI Hans Raj regarding missing of his daughter 'G' aged about 13 years. The complainant Jai Bahadur informed that he was resident of H. No. 443, K. Block, Shakurpur, Delhi at the time of incident and he was a Chowkidar at Punjabi Bagh and his wife was doing household work in the kothis. He further informed that on 27.6.2009 at about 11 AM when he came from his duty and his wife had gone for her work at kothis, his daughter 'G' who had come from Nepal about five months back, was missing. According to the complainant, he searched for his daughter and made inquiries from neighbours and also from his wife but she could not be traced out and thereafter he reported the matter to the police. On the basis of this statement of the complainant, the present FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC. During investigations it was revealed that the Pawan who was residing on the ground floor of the same premises was also missing and the complainant expressed his suspicion upon Pawan.
Thereafter, on 26.08.2009 when the complainant had gone to purchase vegetables at Subzi Mandi shakurpur, he saw his daughter 'G' and accused Pawan there and he apprehended them and brought St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 2 of 35 them to the police station where statement of the prosecutrix 'G' was recorded and the accused was arrested. Medical examination of both prosecutrix and the accused was got conducted and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court.
CHARGE:
3. Ld. predecessor of this court settled the charges against the accused under Section 363/366/376 Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as sixteen witnesses.
Public witnesses:
5. PW2 Subhash has deposed that previously he was residing at K-443, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi which he had purchased in the month of June 2009. He has now sold this premises in the month of November/December 2009. According to him when he had purchased this house, it was occupied by tenants and the accused Pawan used to reside in the said house on the ground floor along with his family comprising of his mother, sister and brother. The witness has deposed that Jai Bahadur used to reside on the third floor along with his family. Later he came to know that Pawan had eloped with the daughter of Jai Bahadur. According to the witness, in the month of August, date he does not remember, when he came to the premises from Gurgaon he saw that mother of Pawan had come to the premises St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 3 of 35 along with a small girl whom he later came to know was the Bhanji of accused Pawan. He has deposed that when he made enquiry she told that accused Pawan has gone to his village. According to him, he informed the police only after which Pawan was arrested. The witness has deposed that the investigating officer recorded his statement on the same date in the police station on which date Pawan was arrested.
6. In his cross examination by Addl. PP for the State, the witness PW2 has deposed that he did not make any statement to the investigating officer that he and Jai Bahadur had seen accused Pawan and the prosecutrix and produced them before the police. The witness has deposed that he had only informed the police when the mother of the accused namely Ramkali had come to the premises along with a small girl on which the police made interrogation from her and subsequently accused was arrested.
7. During his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel witness PW2 has deposed that he had called the police from police station himself after going there. He went to police station at about 9.30- 10.00 PM. He has admitted that he was personally not present at the time of arrest of the accused. According to the witness, when he was brought to the police station, he identified Pawan as the person who was residing in his premises on the ground floor.
8. PW8 'G' (Prosecutrix - name of the girl is withheld as this is a case under Section 363/366/376 Indian Penal Code) has deposed that presently she is residing at D-Block, K-453, JJ Colony, Shakurpur and prior to that she was residing at K Block on the floor where the accused Pawan was also residing. She is residing along St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 4 of 35 with her parents, two twin brothers and two other younger sisters.
According to the prosecutrix, she had come from Nepal five months prior to this incident and she is totally illiterate, therefore she stayed at home to take care of her younger brothers and sisters. She has deposed that at the time of the incident, her parents and sister were all working and she herself used to remain at home since she was not knowing Hindi language at that time and therefore used to take care of her younger brothers and sisters. According to the prosecutrix, despite her repeated objections, the accused Pawan who was residing on the ground floor, used to come at her house when she was alone taking care of her siblings during the day hours when her parents and sisters used to go to work. She further deposed that on the date of incident the accused told her that he would give her ice-cream and took her out on this pretext and after giving ice-cream to her, he told her that he would take her out for site-seeing and first got an auto and thereafter took her in train where they remained for one day. She is unable to tell the names and places where the accused took her because she is not aware of the same. According to prosecutrix, the accused Pawan took her to a village and kept her for almost two months where he did galat-kaam with her (committed rape upon her) against her consent. She further deposed that the accused forcibly put Sindoor on her forehead (Maang) and kept her for about two months. According to her, after that the accused told her that his work had been done and brought her back to Delhi. She further deposed that near Sabzi Mandi, her father saw the accused and caught him and brought him to the police station and she was also taken to the police St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 5 of 35 station where the police recorded her statement. She has deposed that she was also taken to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital where she was medically examined. Her statement was also recorded in the court which statement is Ex.PW8/A bearing her signatures at Mark A.
9. PW8 (prosecutrix 'G') was also examined by Addl. PP for the State with due permission of the court as the witness was not giving the complete facts, wherein the prosecutrix deposed that she had told the investigating officer that when she was taken to unknown place by the accused, he had committed rape upon her without her consent and also threatened her not to tell anybody about the same. She also deposed that she told the investigating officer that when she told the accused that she wanted to see her parents, he told her that now they had got married and she could not meet her parents. According to her, she had told the investigating officer that when she told the accused Pawan to leave her with her parents, he used to threaten her and quarreled with her.
10. In her cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW8 (prosecutrix) has deposed that she came to the court with her parents to depose. According to her, she did not complain to her parents about Pawan coming forcibly to her house in their absence but she had told her younger sister Manisha on which Manisha confronted Pawan and told him why he used to trouble her (prosecutrix). She has denied the suggestion that she had not told Manisha or that Manisha had never ever objected to Pawan not to come to her house. She is unable to tell whether her age is more than 16 years and is not aware of her exact age. She has denied the suggestion that when Pawan had St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 6 of 35 offered to give ice-cream to her, she had voluntarily gone with him. According to the prosecutrix, she did not tell either the ice-cream wala or the auto driver tht the accused was forcibly taking her somewhere. She has admitted that there were a large number of persons in the train, but she did not tell anybody that the accused was taking her forcibly. She has deposed that at that time she had come from her village in Nepal about five months prior and was not knowing Hindi language and could only understand what the accused said in Hindi but she could not speak Hindi properly. According to her, the place where the accused kept her in the village, there were other persons and there were a large number of ladies also. She has deposed that, she told one lady that the accused Pawan had brought her forcibly to the village, but she is unable to tell the name of the said lady. According to the witness, she could go out of the house but not here and there since she was asked not to go here and there. She has further deposed that there were no houses adjoining to where she was kept and the houses were far away and she was not permitted to go outside. She has deposed that she did not tell the accused she wanted to speak her parents. According to her her parents never had a telephone connection so she could not contacted them. She did not see the police on the railway station. She has denied the suggestion that the investigating officer read over the statement to her outside the court before her deposition in the court. She has further denied that she of her own had gone with the accused and had made physical relations with the accused and has deposed falsely against the accused at the instance of her parents. The prosecutrix has denied the St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 7 of 35 suggestion that she is a major and even at the time of incident she was aged more than 16 years. She has further denied the suggestion that she had got married with the accused with her consent. According to her, she had never married in Mandir and the accused only put Sindoor in her forehead (Maang). She has denied that suggestion that she was having an affair with the accused and it is for this reason that she had voluntarily gone with the accused.
11. PW10 Jai Bahadur has deposed that at the time of incident he was resident of H. No. 443, K Block, Shakurpur, Delhi and was working as a chowkidar at Punjabi Bagh at that time. According to him his wife was doing household work in the Kothis and his daughter 'G' (prosecutrix) had come from Nepal about five months prior to the incident and at that time she was illiterate and could not even speak Hindi properly. He has deposed that he is having five children and 'G' is the eldest. According to him on 27.06.2009, he and his wife were on duty and they normally return from the duty by 12.00 Noon and on said date when he returned from duty to the home he found that his daughter 'G' who use to take care of his younger children including the twin sons was not at home. According to him he tried to search for her but he could not find her. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police on 28.06.2009 and his statement was recorded by the police which is Ex.PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. The witness has deposed that his second daughter Manisha, younger to 'G' told him after about five days that Pawan is also not at home and there is a lock at his house and 'G' might have gone with him. The witness has deposed that he was residing at the third floor St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 8 of 35 and Pawan was residing at the ground floor of the same premises. The witness has deposed that on 26.08.2009 he had gone to purchase vegetables at Subzi Mandi Shakurpur when he saw prosecutrix and Pawan and on seeing him Pawan started running away on which he (witness) apprehended the accused Pawan and took both Pawan and prosecutrix to the police station and the memo of producing 'G' in the police station is Ex.PW10/B bearing his signature at point A. According to the witness, he asked 'G' what had happened on which she told that on the pretext of buying ice cream for her, Pawan took her away to an unknown places. Thereafter, Pawan was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex.PW10/C bearing his signature at point mark A. According to the witness, the medical examination of his daughter was also got conducted and she was also produced in the court where her statement was recorded and that that time the age of his daughter was 16 years. He has identified the accused in the present case.
12. With permission of the court Ld. APP put leading question to the witness wherein the witness Jai Bahadur has deposed that his younger daughter Manisha told him that she had seen Pawan talking to 'G' (prosecutrix) on the roof of the house many times. According to the witness, he had not stated to the police that his daughter 'G' told him that accused had committed "Galat Kaam" with her. (The witness was confronted with portion A to A of statement Mark A where it is so recorded). He has further deposed that his daughter 'G' told him that accused Pawan had asked her to marry him.
13. During his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 9 of 35 witness Jai Bahadur has deposed that he is totally illiterate and was married about 20 years back but year he does not remember. He was 18 years old at that time and his wife Heera is presently aged about 38 years and was about 1 ½ years younger to him at the time of marriage. According to the witness, 'G' (prosecutirx) is his eldest daughter and she was born four years after the marriage and has not been put in any school. He has denied the suggestion that presently 'G' is aged about 17-18 years. He has deposed that 'G' was born at home and not in the hospital, in his native village at Nepal. He does not cast his vote so he does not have any voter card as he is residing in a tenanted premises. The witness has further deposed that Manisha is about 4 ½ year younger to 'G' (prosecutrix). he has another daughter namely Poonam younger to Manisha who is 3½ year younger to Manisha. He has further deposed that his twin sons are about 3½ year younger to Poonam and that his twin sons were born in India in the year 2007 who are presently about three years old. According to him, prior to the incident neither 'G' nor Manisha had told him that accused Pawan used to visit his house in his absence. He has deposed that on the day of incident Manisha was not at home as she was in the kothi where she was to take care of a child. According to the witness Jai Bahadur, after his marriage he remained in the village for about two months after which he went to Surat and Uttaranchal to earn his livelyhood and returned to the village after two years. He stayed in the village for about three months and went back to Surat where he stayed for three years and returned thereafter. According to the witness, the prosecutrix 'G' was born while he had St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 10 of 35 gone to Surat for the second time. He has deposed that he does not have any telephone connection and that she did not contact him during this period.
Medical / Forensic Evidence
14. PW3 Dr. Manideepa has deposed that on on 26.08.2009 one patient 'G' (prosecutrix) D/o Jai Bahadur, age 13 years, female, was brought to the hospital and the patient was brought the hospital for medical examination and the patient was referred to S.R. (Gynae). The MLC of the prosecutrix is Ex.PW3/A. According to the witness, on 26.08.2009, she also examined one Pawan Kumar S/o Sumer Singh age 19 years, male and opined that there is nothing to suggest that the patient is incapable of performing sexual intercourse, whose MLC is Ex.PW3/B bearing her signature at point A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
15. PW4 Dr. Mamta has deposed that on 27.12.2009 one patient Pawan Kumar S/o Sumer Singh was brought to the hospital for taking blood sample and medical examination and on local examination no fresh injury was seen and after examination the blood sample were taken which was sealed and handed over to the Ct. Narender. According to the witness, he prepared the ME which is Ex.PW4/A bearing his signature at point A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
16. PW5 Dr. Satish Kumar Singh has deposed that on 26.08.2009 one patient Pawan Kumar S/o Sumer Singh aged 19 years, male was brought to the hospital who was initially examined St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 11 of 35 by Dr. Manideepa and was referred to S.R. (Surgery) where he (witness) had examined the patient and no external injury was found and his finding on the MLC at point marked X to X bearing his signature at point A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
17. PW6 Dr. Aman has deposed after seeing the bone age examination report of the prosecutrix 'G' which is in the handwriting of Dr. Rajesh and as per this report, the internal condine of right elbow is partially fused, thus the age is not more than 18 years. The witness has deposed that the bony age most likely to fall in 16 to 18 years however co-relation with clinical examination and indocrine lab findings. This witness has deposed that he is well conversant with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Rajesh as he has seen him while writing and signing during the course of his duties. He has proved the report Ex.PW6/A bearing signature of Dr. Rajesh at point A and B.
18. During his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness PW6 has deposed that initially the doctor had opined the age of the patient / prosecutrix between 16 to 20 years. According to the witness, the report was not prepared in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that he was not well conversant with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Rajesh and has depose falsely.
19. PW7 Indresh Kumar Mishra, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL, has deposed that on 09.09.2009 two parcels were received in connection with case FIR 332/09, U/s 363/366/376 IPC, PS. Saraswati Vihar. According to him he examined the exhibits and gave his report on 27.01.2010, which is collectively Ex.PW7/A St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 12 of 35 bearing his signature at point A and B. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
20. PW9 Dr. Shikha Jain has deposed that on 26/08/2009 she examined the prosecutrix, aged 13 years who was referred to her by CMO. According to the witness, as per victim she went away with some one two months back and had sexual relations with him. The witness has deposed that on examination, no marks of external injuries seen and non matted pubic hairs. Further examination revealed old torn healed hymen, normal fourchetted, introitus admitting two fingers easily, P/S cervix and vagina NAD, Mucoid discharge present, PV uterus antivertied normal size, Bylateral fornices free. According to the witness, the high vaginal swab taken and two vaginal smears prepared and sealed and handed over to Ct. The witness has proved her findings on the MLC which is Ex.PW9/A bearing her signature at point A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
Police Witnesses
21. PW1 ASI Sunita Dutta has deposed that on 27.8.09 he was posted at police station Saraswati Vihar and on that day investigation of this case was marked to him on which he perused the file and during investigation the statement of prosecutrix U/S 164 Cr.PC was got recorded. He also obtained copy of statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. The application which he moved for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.PC is Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at point St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 13 of 35 A and the application which he moved for supply of copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC is Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point B. He also identified his signatures or statement Ex.PW1/C at point A. Thereafter he produced the prosecutrix before Ld. Link MM for recording the statement u/S 164 Cr.PC. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, on 9-9-09 the sealed pullandas of this case FIR were deposited by him at FSL Rohini and during the said tenure the same remained in his possession and nobody temper with it nor he allowed to anyone to temper them. According to the witnessed, after completing of investigation the file presented before the SHO, who prepared the charge sheet and submitted before the court. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard.
22. PW11 HC Gurnam Singh has deposed that on 28.06.2009 he was posted as Duty officer at police station Saraswati Vihar from 5.00 PM to 1.00 AM (Midnight) and at about 20.00 PM ASI Hans Raj brought the rukka Ex.PW11/A on which he made his endorsement at point B bearing his signatures at point C. According to the witness, on the basis of rukka he registered the FIR Ex.PW11/B which also bears his signatures at point A. He handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Vellu Swami for further handing over the same to ASI Hans Raj. He also lodged a DD vide No. 35A regarding registration of the present FIR. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity in this regard. On a Court Question the witness has deposed that at the time of registration of the case, the allegations were only of section 363 IPC St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 14 of 35 and it is for this reason that the investigations of this case were not handed over to a female officer. According to him the provisions of Section 376 IPC were added later.
23. PW12 Ct. Bhajan Kaur has deposed that on 26/27.8.2009 he was on emergency duty from 7.00 PM to 7.00 AM in District Control Room, North West District and on the receipt of information from police station Saraswati Vihar, he reached at police station Saraswati Vihar at about 9.30PM and met the investigating officer. According to the witness, the ASI Hans Raj sent him (witness) along with the prosecutrix to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital for her medical examination. The witness has deposed that at about 10.10 PM he got her medical examination conducted when the mother of the prosecutrix was also accompanying them to the hospital. He also received two sealed pulandas sealed with the seal of hospital which he took to the police and handed over the same to the IO on the same day who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW12/A bearing his signatures at point A. According to the witness the prosecutrix and her mother accompanied him to the police station and remained with him till 7.00AM and after 7.00 AM when he was off from duty the prosecutrix was handed over to other lady constable who took over her duty. He also handed over the MLC of the prosecutrix to the IO. His statement was recorded on the same day.
24. During his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness Ct. Bhajan Kaur has deposed that she was not posted at police station Saraswati Vihar on the date of the incident. She was called in the police station on message by the duty officer in writing. He did St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 15 of 35 not make any DD entry in writing before leaving for the hospital. He has deposed that he had gone on the instruction of the Duty Officer and therefore departure entry was not required to be made. According to the witness the mother of the prosecutrix was with her throughout and accompanied them to the hospital and later also came back to the police station. The witness has also deposed that there was no other family member of the prosecutrix or the accused present there. They returned to the police station after getting the medical examination conducted at about 4.00-4.30AM. She has denied the suggestion that she did not go to the hospital for getting the medical examination conducted of the prosecutrix or that she has deposed falsely on the instructions of the investigating officer.
25. PW13 Ct. Ishwanti has deposed that on 27.08.2009 she was posted at police station Saraswati Vihar. She joined the investigation of this case with IO and at about 1.00PM took the prosecutrix 'G' along with her mother went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital for getting her bone X-ray / ossification test conducted. According to the witness, Ct. Narender also took the accused Pawan to the same hospital for his medical examination. The witness has deposed that the Ossification test was got conducted upon the prosecutrix and thereafter they returned to the police station after which the prosecutrix was produced before the Ld. MM where her statement was recorded by the Ld. MM. According to the witness thereafter the prosecutrix was handed over to her mother in the court itself on the directions of the court. The witness has deposed that the accused was also produced before the Ld. Ilaqa Magistrate and thereafter sent to St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 16 of 35 Judicial Custody. The witness has deposed that her statement was recorded by the IO on the same day in the police station.
26. During her cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW13 has deposed that they reached the hospital at 1.00 PM (afternoon) and that the mother of the prosecutrix was with them when they had gone for the ossification test of the prosecutrix. According to the witness, at the time when the test was being conducted, the mother of the prosecutrix had not gone inside the chamber of the doctor and was standing outside. She has denied the suggestion that the mother of the prosecutrix had gone inside and was present with the doctor when the test was conducted and the report was procured at her instance. He has further denied the suggestion that till the time the prosecutrix remained with her and before she produced before the Ld. MM for recording her statement Us/ 164 Cr. P. C., the mother of the prosecutrix was tutoring her in her presence and that she facilitated her dialog with the prosecutrix during the said period.
27. PW14 Ct. Ramraj Meena has deposed that on 26.08.2009 he was posted at police station Saraswati vihar and on that day he joined the investigation of this case with the investigating officer and at about 9.15 PM he was called by the investigating officer in the police station. According to the witness the accused Pawan present in the court was handed over to him and that the prosecutrix , her mother Smt. Heera and her father Sh. Jai Bahadur came in the police station after which lady constable Bhajan Kaur was also called in the police station. According to the witness, the prosecutrix was sent to the Hospital for her medical examination and the accused Pawan was also St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 17 of 35 taken by him and ASI Hans Raj to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and reached there at about 10.05 PM and medical examination of both the prosecutrix and the accused were got conducted. According to the witness, lady Ct. Bhajan Kaur had produced two vaginal swab slides and vaginal smear tube of the prosecutrix duly sealed with the seal of the hospital along with the sample seal before the investigating officer and the same were taken into possession by him and accused Pawan was arrested in this case at about 2.00 AM vide memo Ex.PW10/C bearing his signature at point A and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/A bearing his signature at point A.
28. During his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the witness PW14 has deposed that he cannot tell the number of DD entry by which he joined the investigations of this case. He left the Police station at about 9.30-9.45 PM and he went to the hospital in a TSR but is unable to tell the number of the said TSR. He remained in the hospital till 1.00 AM (Midnight) and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer in the police station at about 1.45 AM (midnight) and they came back to the police station from the hospital at about 1.15-1.20 AM (midnight). According to the witness, the accused and ASI Hansraj were also with him. He has denied the suggestion that he did not take the accused to the hospital or that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer of his own. He further denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigations of this case.
29. PW15 Ct. Narender has deposed that on 27.08.2009 he was posted at police station Saraswati Vihar and on that day at about 1.00 St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 18 of 35 PM (afternoon) the accused Pawan was taken out from the lock up and he took Pawan to the hospital and that lady Ct. Ishwanti along with the prosecutrix and her mother also went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and ASI Hans Raj accompanied them to the hospital. After medical examination of accused Pawan, he took the blood sample duly sealed with the seal of the hospital, from the concerned doctor and handed over the same to the IO who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/A bearing his signature at point A. According to the witness, the bone X-ray of the prosecutrix was got done and thereafter both the accused and prosecutrix were brought to the police station and brought to the court and produced before the Ld. MM who sent the accused to the Judicial Custody and the prosecutrix was handed over to her mother.
30. In his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW15 has deposed that he cannot tell the DD number by which he went to the hospital. He went to the hospital in a Maruti van but he does not remember its number but states that it was a private vehicle. He does not remember the name of the driver of the vehicle and the said driver was not joined as a witness in the investigations. He reached the hospital at about 1.15PM and the distance between the police station and the hospital is about 2-3 kilometers. He left the hospital at about 2.30 PM-3.00 PM. According to the witness, his statement was recorded in the police station by the IO W/ASI Sunita Dutta at about 4.30 PM. He has denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation or that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the investigating officer.
St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 19 of 35
31. PW16 ASI Hans Raj has deposed that on 28.06.2009 he was posted at police station Saraswati Vihar and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM and at about 9:30 PM Jai Bahadur came to the police station and had given his statement regarding missing of his daughter 'G', aged about 13 years at that time and he recorded his statement which is Ex.PW10/A. He thereafter prepared a rukka Ex.PW11/A bearing his signature at point C and produced the same before the then Duty Officer HC Gurnam Singh who recorded the FIR which is Ex.PW11/B. After receiving the copy of FIR and original rukka from duty officer, he asked complainant Jai Bahadur to produce the photograph of the girl and the birth certificate which he not produced at that time. Thereafter he got the WT message flashed and informed the missing squad. According to him, he made efforts to trace the girl (prosecutrix). On 03.07.2009 he went to the house of complainant at House No. K-453, Shakurpur where Smt. Heera and Manisha met him who informed him that her husband Jai Bahadur had gone to Nepal for the purpose of photograph and birth certificate of the prosecutrix and also informed that one Pawan who is the resident of ground floor on the same house is also missing from 27.06.2009. According to the witness, Heera further informed that she had seen her daughter 'G' talking with the accused Pawan on the roof and therefore had grave suspicion on the accused Pawan. He recorded the statements of Smt. Heera and Manisha U/S 161 Cr. P. C. thereafter he came back to the police station. According to the witness, on 10.07.2009 complainant Jai Bahadur came to the police station and showed him the photograph of his daughter. He has St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 20 of 35 deposed that Jai Bahadur produced the photograph Ex.PW16/A but expressed his inability to produce the birth certificate of his daughter. Witness thereafter got the photograph and hue and cry notice published in the newspaper and also sent the same to CBI missing squad and also sent the photograph of the missing girl to missing squad. According to the witness, on 26.08.2009 the complainant Jai Bahadur had come to the police station along with missing girl 'G' and the accused Pawan. He took the prosecutrix into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/B which bears his signature at point B and asked duty officer to call the lady constable from the district line who called lady Ct. Bhajan. According to the witness, the complainant told him that his daughter 'G' was complaining about some pain in her body. The witness has deposed that Smt. Heera, mother of the prosecutrix, was called through complainant Jai Bahadur who came to the police station. The girl was taken to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital along with her mother Smt,. Heera and lady Ct. Bhajan Kaur and the accused Pawan was also sent to the same hospital through Ct. Ram Raj and the medical examination of both the 'G' and the Pawan got conducted. According to him, lady Ct. Bhajan Kaur handed over the exhibits of the girl 'G' which she received from the hospital duly sealed with the seal of BMH to him and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW12/A bearing his signature at point B. He thereafter collected the MLC of prosecutrix which is Ex.PW3/A from lady Ct. Bhajan Kaur. He also collected the MLC of the accused from hospital which is Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter they came back to the police station and he narrated the entire facts and about the non-availability of lady investigating officer St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 21 of 35 to the SHO who directed him (witness) to ask the mother of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix to join the investigations. According to the witness, he interrogated the prosecutrix and her mother and recorded their statements U/S 161 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the accused was interrogated and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW10/C and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW14/A both bearing his signature at point B and the accused was put in lock up and the prosecutrix was kept in the police station under the supervision of lady Ct. Bhajan Kaur and the mother of prosecutrix.
32. According to witness PW16, on 27.08.2009 he took the accused Pawan and the prosecutrix to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital along with lady Ct. Ishwanti and Ct. Narender and moved an application for taking the blood sample of the accused and the doctor concerned had taken the blood sample of the accused and handed over the same to him which he seized vide memo Ex.PW15/A bearing his signature at point B. He also moved an application Ex.PW16/B bearing his signature at point A for getting the bone X- Ray of the prosecutrix conducted and the X-Ray of the prosecutrix was got done vide report Ex.PW6/A. According to the witness, the Ct. Narender, prosecutrix and lady Ct. Ishwanti and the accused came to the court where WASI Sunita Dutta met him to whom further investigations of this case was handed over and therefore he handed over the prosecutrix, accused, documents to her for further investigations after which he (witness) was relieved by her and his statement was recorded by her in the police station.
33. During his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, the St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 22 of 35 witness has deposed that on 27 and 28.06.2009 no WT message was flashed. He has also deposed that there was no PCR call when the prosecutrix was found missing and according to him, the complainant Jai Bahadur had come to the police station at about 9-9:30 PM, when he recorded the statement of the complainant, prepared the rukka while sitting in the police station. The witness has deposed that the complainant had not expressed any suspicion in his initial statement which is Ex.PW10/A. According to the witness, on 03.07.2009 he went to the house of complainant in the evening, but he does not remember the exact time of his arrival and recording of the statement of witnesses. The witness has further deposed that none of the witnesses raised suspicion in their statements after 28.06.2009 till 03.07.2009. After getting the case registered on 28.06.2009 he went to the house of complainant on that day itself where his wife Smt. Hira met him but on that day she had not given her statement as she was unwell on that day. According to the witness, after 28.06.2009 and before 03.07.2009, he visited the house of complainant two or three times but she did not met as she used to go to work in nearby kothies. He made efforts to locate the relative of accused also in order to save the accused after 03.07.2009 to which he came to know that one old lady might be his mother was residing with the accused but she did not met him. He recorded the statement of Smt. Heera and Manisha in their house on the third floor but the house of accused Pawan was locked at that time. He did not prepared seizure memo when he took the photograph of the prosecutrix into possession. The witness is unable to tell the exact time when they left the police St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 23 of 35 station for medical examination of the prosecutrix and the accused to the hospital. According to the witness, the distance between the police station and the hospital is about 2 ½ -3 Kms and they went to the hospital from police station in a TSR. According to him, there is no detail, record and memo of the expenses incurred to go to hospital on record and that there is no DD entry regarding joining of lady constable Bhajan Kaur in the investigations. According to the wintess there is no DD entry recorded in the police station prior to left from the police station to hospital for medical examination of the prosecutrix and the accused. Witness has deposed that on 26.08.2009 he cannot tell at what time they came back to the police station after the medical examination of the prosecutrix and the accused. He has further deposed that there were no details of any TSR number or the memos of the expenses incurred upon to and fro by the TSR. Witness has also deposed that the mother of the prosecutrix remained with her till such time she (mother) was handed over the custody of the prosecutrix. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not conduct complete inquiry and investigations and the name of Pawan has been subsequently incorporated at the instance of the parents of the prosecutrix. According to him there are no directions of SHO in writing to him to investigate the matter since there was no lady officer available in the police station. He has denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not collect the date of birth certificate as the prosecutrix is not a minor or that that the ossification report has been prepared by the doctor on his (witness's) suggestion and it is for this reason that there is variations on both the opinions mark A and St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 24 of 35 mark B. According to the witness, the accused Pawan was produced before him by the father and the mother of the prosecutrix. He has deposed that the father of the prosecutrix had told him that he had caught the accused in the Shakurpur Subzi Mandi area. He did not make any investigations to confirm if what the father of the prosecutrix saying was correct or not. Witness has denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not make any investigations in this regard since he wanted to close the investigations of the case by implicating the accused at the instance of the parents of the prosecutrix. According to him, the prosecutrix had come to the court along with her mother before her statement U/S 164 Cr. P. C. was recorded. Witness has denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix was tutored and was threatened by him, lady Ct. Ishwanti and her parents had forced to make her statement U/S 164 Cr. P.C. Ex.PW1/C. Statement of accused & defence evidence:
34. After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he has denied. The accused has stated that the prosecutrix herself came to him and asked him to take her away or else she would commit suicide. He has further stated that he put sindoor on the forehead of prosecutrix with her consent and they both resided at M Block from where they were apprehended by the police. He further stated that they got married in the court and were residing as husband and wife with mutual consent. According to the accused, the prosecutrix had given her age 17 to 17 ½ years.
St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 25 of 35 FINDINGS
35. I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. defence counsel. I have also perused the testimonies of various witnesses and considered the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused persons.
Age of Prosecutrix:
36. In so far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, it is evident from the record that the prosecutrix belongs to a very poor family and has no formal education. The case of the prosecution is that at the time of the incident the prosecutrix was of 13 years of age, but the bony X-ray report Ex.PW6/A shows that on examination of internal condine right elbow which found to be partially fused, the bone age of the prosecutrix is most likely between 16 to 18 years. Therefore, it is evident that even if we take the lower side, she has attained the age of consent. In the absence of any other documentary material proving the date of birth of the prosecutrix including school leaving certificate or the certificate from the municipal corporation, I hereby hold that at the time of the incident the prosecutrix was minor (i.e. below 18 years).
Identity of Accused:
37. In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, firstly he has been duly named in the FIR. It is also evident that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW1/C has specifically named the accused Pawan who was her neighbour St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 26 of 35 residing at K Block where she was residing previously. Further even in the court, she has identified the accused Pawan. It is also evident from the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC that he has not disputed his identity in any manner.
Allegations against the Accused / Statement of Prosecutrix:
38. The prosecutrix 'G' in her statement before the Ld. MM under Section 164 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW1/C has made categorical allegations against the accused Pawan that on the date of incident the accused had enticed her by suggesting that he would buy her an ice cream and had taken her in the auto to the railway station from where he took her in a house and committed rape upon her and thereafter left her on the road. The relevant portion of her statement is as under:
"do mahine pahele mai K Block mein raheti thi. Pawan hamare nichey raheta tha. Hum chauthi manjil par raheti theiy. Ye mujhe Icecream dilane ke bahane lye gaya aur mujhe Auto mein lye gaya. Fir mujhe station par le gaya aur Train mein sath lye gaya. Mujhe kisi ke ghar mein lye gaya aur mere sath galat kam kiya. Usne mujge kaha ki mai jis kam ke liye tujhge laya tha, who ho gaya hai aur fir mujhe Road par chhor diya. Fir mujhe Police ne pakar liya."
39. Further, in her testimony before the court the prosecutrix 'G' St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 27 of 35 has also corroborated what she earlier told the Ld. MM. According to her, at the time of incident, she had just come from Nepal five months before the incident and was not yet conversant with Hindi language. The accused was residing on the ground floor and used to come at her house despite her objection when she was alone taking care of her siblings during the day hours and when her parents used to go for their work and on the pretext of giving her ice-cream and site seeing, he took her away from her house and first they boarded an auto and thereafter the train where they remained for one day and thereafter he took her in a village and kept her there for almost two months where he committed rape upon her against her consent and also forcibly put the Sindoor on her forehead (maang). It is thereafter that the accused brought her back to Delhi when her father saw them near the Sabzi Mandi and took both of them to the police station. In her cross examination by Addl. PP for the State, the prosecutrix has admitted that she told the accused that she wanted to see her parents but the accused had told her that since they got married, she should not meet her parents. The relevant portion of her statement before the court is as under:
"On the date of incident the accused told me that he would give me ice-cream and took me out on the pretext. After giving ice-cream to me, the accused told me that he would take me out for side-seeing. He first got an auto and thereafter he took me in train where we remained for one day. I cannot tell the names and places where he took St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 28 of 35 me because I am not aware of the same. The accused took me in a village and kept me for almost two months where he did Galat Kaam with me (committed rape upon me) against my consent. He also forcibly put Sindoor on my forehead (Maang) and kept me for about two months. After that the accused told me that his work had been done and brought me back to Delhi. Near Sabzi Mandi my father saw the accused and caught him and brought him to the police station."
40. It is evident from the above that the prosecutrix was apprehended at Subzi Mandi Shakurpur and her testimony finds due corroboration from the testimony of her father Jai Bahadur (PW10) who has deposed that on 26.8.2009 when he had gone to purchase vegetables at Subzi Mandi Shakurpur, he saw the prosecutrix and the accused and he apprehended both of them and took them to the police station. This being so, the aspect of the prosecutrix being kept at the village of the accused for two months against her wishes, does not appear probable.
Consent of the Prosecutrix:
41. It is evident that the prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to raise a hue and cry when she was first taken in the TSR which she did not do. She had sufficient opportunity to resist when she was taken to the railway station and also in the train where a large number of St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 29 of 35 public persons were travelling and she would have informed the other co-passengers regarding the accused taking her forcibly, which again she did not do. It is also evident from the cross examination of the prosecutrix that when the accused had kept her in the village, there were other persons and large number of ladies but she did not tell any one of them that she had been forcibly brought by the accused, though in her cross examination she stated that she told one lady but she did not provide the detail of that lady to whom she had given such information. Earlier, in her examination-in-chief on the suggestion of the Addl. PP, the prosecutrix had admitted that she had told the accused that she wanted to meet her parents but he has refused, but in her cross-examination, she has denied the same and stated that she did not tell the accused that she wanted to meet her parents since her parents had no telephone connection. I may observe that the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC had been recorded by Ld. MM after she met her parents and therefore the possibility of her tutoring cannot be ruled out, more so, the MLC Ex.PW3/A shows that at the first instance during her medical examination, the prosecutrix herself had told the doctor that she had gone away with someone two months back and had sexual relations with him. This proves that the prosecutrix who was aged more than 16 years at the time of the incident, was the consenting party to the physical relations with the accused during her stay with the accused.
Medical / Forensic Evidence:
42. Nothing much has come out from the medical examination of St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 30 of 35 the prosecutrix, rather it goes in favour of the accused. It is evident from the MLC of the prosecutrix that on inquiry, she had told to the doctor that she had gone away with someone about two months back and made physical relations with him. The MLC of the prosecutrix does not prove any use of force on the prosecutrix rather it shows that the prosecutrix was the consenting party to the physical relations which she made with the accused during her stay with him.
Enticing / taking away the minor from custody of parents
43. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was a minor at that time, without consent of her parents. Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the incident and even if we take the age of the prosecutrix to be between 16 to 18 years, she was virtually at the stage of attaining the majority and had contacted the accused with her own sweet will for which the accused cannot be hauled. In this regard, the counsel for the accused has placed his reliance upon the judgment in the case of "Sonu Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi' reported in 2010 Vol. 2 JCC 1337 and "Kulwant Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)" reported in 2010 Vol. 4, JCC 2510.
44. I have gone through the above judgments/ authorities and I may observe that the object of Section 361 Indian Penal Code seems as much to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purposes as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards. The gravamen of this offence lies in the taking or enticing of a minor St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 31 of 35 under the ages specified in this section, out of keeping of the lawful guardian without the consent of such guardian. The words "takes or entices any minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor" in Section 361, are significant. The use of word "keeping" in the context connotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control; further the guardian's charge and control appears to be compatible with the independence of action and movement of the minor, the guardian's protection and control of the minor being available, whenever necessity arises. On plain reading of this section, the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial; it is only the guardian's consent, which takes the case out of its purview. (Ref. Prakash Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2004 SC 227).
45. The case of the prosecution throughout has been that the prosecutrix was induced and enticed by the accused and taken away by him on the pretext of giving her ice-cream and site seeing and it was under these circumstances she was lured by him. I may observe that the prosecutrix was totally illiterate who was not knowing Hindi at the time of incident as she had come from Nepal just two months prior to the incident and was having language problem. Therefore, keeping in view the statement of the prosecutrix that she had been induced by the accused to accompany him, I hold that the principals laid down in the cases of "Sonu Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi' and "Kulwant Singh Vs. State, (Supra) would not be applicable in so far as the aspect of Section 363 Indian Penal Code is concerned.
St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 32 of 35 FINAL CONCLUSION
46. 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 pre-requisites 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;
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.
St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 33 of 35
47. Applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the identity of the accused has been established. It is further stands established that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was above the age of 16 years but less than 18 years. It is further proved that the accused had made physical relations with the prosecutrix but the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate beyond reasonable doubt that the same was without the consent of the prosecutrix, rather it is evident that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to such relations. It has also been proved that the prosecutrix had accompanied the accused to his native village where they stayed for two months and thereafter both of them came back to Delhi. It is further stands established that the father of prosecutrix apprehended the accused from Subzi Mandi, Shakurpur when he saw the prosecutrix and the accused there and thereafter he took the accused to the police station. It has also been proved that the prosecutrix was a minor (below 18 years of age) at the time of incident and was taken away by the accused from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent.
48. This being the background, I hereby hold that in so far as the provisions of Section 366 and Section 376 Indian Penal Code are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to prove the ingredients thereof beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused Pawan is hereby acquitted of the same. However, in so far as the provisions of Section 363 Indian Penal Code are concerned, technically the prosecutrix being a minor who had been taken away by the accused from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent, the St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 34 of 35 accused Pawan is hereby held guilty of the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code for which he is accordingly convicted.
49. Be listed for arguments on sentence at 4:00 PM.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 5.4.2011 ASJ (NW)-II: Rohini
St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 35 of 35
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-II(NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No.1167/2009
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0295142009
State Vs. Pawan
S/o Sh. Sumer
R/o Village Sandela,
Police Station Sandela,
Mohalla Bhoolantola,
Distt. Hardoi, U.P.
Also at:
K-453, Ground Floor,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
FIR No. : 332/09
Police Station: Saraswati Vihar
Under Section: 363/376 Indian Penal Code
Date of Conviction: 5.4.2011
Arguments heard on: 5.4.2011
Date of Sentence: 5.4.2011
APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Taufiq Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Convict Pawan in judicial custody with Sh. Ram Ashish Yadav Advocate.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment of even date the convict Pawan has been held guilty of the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 36 of 35 Code.
As per the allegations on 27.6.2009 the accused Pawan kidnapped the prosecutrix 'G' from the lawful guardianship of her parents with an intent and knowledge that she shall be seduced to illicit intercourse or to force her to marry. It was also alleged that the accused Pawan committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her wishes. On the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix and various other witnesses examined by the prosecution this court has acquitted the accused Pawan for the offence under Section 366 & 376 Indian Penal Code and he has only been convicted for the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code since technically the prosecutrix 'G' was a minor (i.e. between 16 to 18 years) at the time of incident.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Pawan is a young boy of 20 years of age having a family comprising of father, three elder brothers and three sisters. He is 5th class pass and was working as Sweeper in a private company. The convict has already remained in judicial custody for about one year seven months and nine days. He is not involved in any other case and is a first time offender. Ld. counsel for the convict has prayed that a lenient view be taken against him. Ld. Addl. PP for the State, on the other hand, has prayed for a strict punishment keeping in view the allegations involved.
I have considered the rival contentions. Keeping in view the fact that the convict Pawan is a young boy of 20 years and is not involved in any other case, a lenient view is taken against him. The St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 37 of 35 convict Pawan is hereby sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone by him (i.e. One year, seven months and nine days) and fine to the tune of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two days.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convict for the period undergone by him during the trial.
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, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 5.4.2011 ASJ (NW)-II: Rohini St. Vs. Pawan, FIR No. 332/09, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 38 of 35