Delhi District Court
11 In State vs . Nalini (1999)5 Supreme Court Cases 253 ... on 18 January, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SMT. BIMLA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(NORTH):DELHI
S.C. No.61/15.04.09
State
Vs
Onkar Nath Kalia
S/o Late Sh. Khushal Chand
B1328, Shastri Nagar
Delhi.
FIR NO: 18/2003
PS: Special Cell
U/S 120B IPC & 3/9 O.S Act
Arguments heard: 07.01.10
Judgment announced: 18.01.10
JUDGMENT
In the present case charge was framed by ld. Predecessor on 29.09.07 against accused Omkar Nath Kalia in respect of offence U/S 120B IPC with the allegations that during the period upto 24.3.03, he entered in criminal conspiracy with members of Pak High Commission Officials to do an illegal work, which was prejudical to the safety, security and integrity of India as he collected the documents, which were directly or indirectly useful to the enemy country and relating to the defence matter of India.
2 Charge was also framed against accused in respect of the offence U/S 3 and 9 of Official Secrets Act with the allegations that on 24.02.03 at about 5.20 PM at Cross Road No.3, Near Pak High Commission, he was found to have collected certain documents, which were prejudicial to the safety and interest of India. The documents were related to the defence matter and the disclosure of which to unauthorised person would effect the sovereignty and integrity of India and security of the State. It was further alleged that information contained in those documents was calculated to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy country. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial. 3 To prove its case, prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. They are Sh. Chander Mohan(PW1), HC Vinay Tyagi(PW2), Sh. Kapil Shukla(PW3), Sh. Pradeep Kumar(PW4), Commander U.K. Bhardwaj (PW5), SI Diler Singh(PW6), Sh. B.R. Dhiman(PW7), Sh. Samuel(PW8), Col. T.C. Dahiya(PW9), Dr. Vijay Kumar(PW10), Insp.Vivek Tyagi(PW11), Insp. Ramjeet Singh(PW12), Insp. Desh Raj Yadav(PW13), Sh. Vivek Jeph (PW14), Sh. Krishna Sastry Pendyala(PW15), Sh. Ashok Chand(PW16), Insp. A. S Rawat(PW17) and Insp. Hukam Chand (PW18). 4 Statement of accused Onkar Nath Kalia has been recorded wherein he denied the allegations of prosecution. He has submitted that he is supplying the books to all Missions including Pakistan. The documents recovered from his possession are available in the market. The Section 3 of Official Secret Act is not applicable to him as security and safety of India is not damaged in any way. Police raided his house, at Shastri Nagar at his instance. They took the books, in which he was dealing, in presence of two witnesses, who are his neighbours. The witnesses do not know the material in the books as they were shown the material from a distance. Police does not have the photographs of the officials of High Commission, which they took from his house. The Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, is not aware of the posting of the officials of Pak High Commission. The police officials do not know the colour of the scooter, allegedly recovered from his possession. The nine documents could not be put in the right pocket of trouser. Search was never conducted. He does not know how to operate computer and have not engaged anybody to operate the computer. His sons are operating the computer, but there is no incriminating things in the hard disc of the computer. He never did anything against law. He has been falsely implicated in this case for deporting Pak High Commissioner Mr. Qasi. All Head of the Missions of all Embassys' are very benevolent to him. His reputation was not tolerable and acceptable to certain section of the society. A month before 24.2.03 he received a call from a person, who told him that he (the person who telephoned) was from RAW. He asked him (accused) as to why he (accused) was moving so much in the embassys upon which he (accused) told him that he(accused) is dealing in the publication of all type of books. He (accused)also told that his top customers are Nigeria, Poland, U.K, Japan, Russia etc. Then the person, replied that he was satisfied. He (accused)was doing his business freely and video cassettes, seized by the police were made in Pakistan against India and because of his national spirit, he produced them to the police.
5 In his defence accused has examined five witnesses. They are Sh. Ram Kumar (DW1), Sh. Hans Raj (DW2), Sh. Rajesh Kumar (DW3), Sh. Phool Singh (DW4) and Sh. Sanjay Sharma (DW5).
6 I have heard the arguments from ld. counsel for accused and Ld. Addl. P.P for State. I have perused the case file.
7 In the present case accused was not ready to accept the service of legal aid counsel despite the offer, made by ld. Predecessor. 8 First of all, I am taking Section 120B IPC with which accused has been charged.
9 Section 120B is reproduced here for ready reference:
"Whoever, is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence."
10 The term 'Criminal conspiracy has been denied under Section 120A of Indian Penal Code which is reproduced here for ready reference:
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (1)an illegal act, or (2)an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy :
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
11 In State Vs. Nalini (1999)5 Supreme Court Cases 253 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is a legal act by illegal means overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The question for consideration in a case is did all the accused had the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever horrendous it may be, that offence is committed.
It was further held that Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
It was also held that when two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement.
It was further held that a charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused has knowledge of the object of conspiracy. The court has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence against some may result in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided.
It was further held that it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, act and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. 12 In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that there was an agreement between accused and officials of the Pak High Commission to do an illegal act. In the absence of any agreement, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not able to prove its case U/S 120B IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the offence U/S 120B IPC.
13 The next charge against accused is under 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act,1923.
14 Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act,1923 is reproduced here for ready reference:
(1)If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State
(a)approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place; or
(b)makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy; or
(c)obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy or which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend, where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation to any secret official code, to fourteen years and in other cases to three years.
(2)On a prosecution for an offence punishable under this section. It shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State' and if any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information relating to or used in any prohibited place, or relating to anything in such a place, or any secret official code or password is made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated by any person other than a person acting under lawful authority, and from the circumstances of the case or his conduct or his known character as proved it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, such sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, information, code or password shall be presumed to have been made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State.
15 Section 9 of the Official Secrets Act,1923 is reproduced here for ready reference:
Any person who attempts to commit or abets the commission of an offence under this Act shall be punishable with the same punishment, and be liable to be proceeded against in the same manner as if he had committed such offence.
16 In the present case, accused was apprehended on 24.2.03 by the members of raiding party consisting of Inspector Desh Raj Yadav, SI A.S. Rawat, SI A. K. Singh, ASI Hare Ram, HC Vinay Tyagi, HC Ajit, Ct. Ashok Kumar, Ct. Dharamveer, Inspector Hukam Chand and secret informer. At about 5.20 PM at Cross Road No.3, Neeti Marg, Delhi accused was apprehended by the members of raiding party when he was going on a scooter No. DL6SH0660. After apprehension, his personal search was conducted. From the right side pocket of the pant of accused, nine documents were recovered. The same were seized by the IO PW17 Inspector A.S. Rawat vide memo Ex.PW13/A and the seal after use was given to SI Desh Raj. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW13/D by PW 18 Inspector Hukam Chand, to whom further investigation of the case was handed over. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/E. During the course of investigation accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW3/G. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, the house of accused at D1328, Shastri Nagar was searched. 68 documents were recovered from his house and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. The documents are Ex.P1 to P68. At the time of recovery of the documents Ex.P1 to P68, two persons from the public were also present, who have been examined as PW1 Sh. Chander Mohan and PW4 Sh. Pradeep Kumar. In addition to the documents Ex.P1 to P 68, one CPU and two cassettes were also recovered from the house of accused and same were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C in the presence of public witnesses Pradeep Kumar and Chander Mohan. PW18 Inspector Hukam Chand got verified the documents recovered from the house of accused. He also sent the CPU to office of Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad, for examination.
17 In the present case, Sh. Kapil Shukla, Group Captain, Director Counter Intelligence, Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan, Delhi has been examined as PW3. He has deposed that on 04.03.03, a letter was received from SI of the Special Cell New Delhi alongwith photocopies of the certain documents, recovered from the possession of accused for opinion. The copy of letter is Ex.PW3/A. He has further deposed that another letter dated 09.6.03 Ex.PW3/B was also received from the Inspector of Special Cell for opinion on certain documents, which were extracted from the Hard Disc. allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Onkar Nath. He has further deposed that on 04.03.03 he was posted as Joint Director and Mr. Rahul Dhar was Director. Since Sh. Rahul Dhar was the Director, the opinion on the documents, as mentioned in the letter dated 04.03.03 Ex.PW3/A was sent to Special Cell alongwith covering letter dated 28.03.03. The letter dated 28.3.03 signed by Sh. Rahul Dhar alongwith the opinion is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW3/C1 to C3. PW3 has also deposed that he gave his opinion regarding documents, referred to in the letter dated 09.6.03, vide his letter Ex.PW3/D. As per the opinion, given by him and Rahul Dhar, four documents Ex.PW3/E1 to E4 were opined as being useful to enemy country.
18 In crossexamination by accused PW3 has denied that the information contained in the documents Ex.PW3/E1 to Ex.PW3/E4 are already published and is in the knowledge of everybody. He denied that the information which are contained in the documents Ex.PW3/E1 to Ex.PW3/E4 are available in the books "Modernization of Indian Air Force (Ex.PW3/DA) the book published by SIPRI (Stockholon International Peace Research Institute). He further denied that this book published by SIPRI is available in the open market. He further denied that wrong opinion was given by them at the instance of senior officers.
19 A perusal of document Ex.PW3/C1 shows that Group Captain Rahul Dhar had given parawise comments on five documents vide Appendix 'A', which is Ex.PW3/C2. A perusal of Appendix, Ex.PW3/2 shows that the document at Column (b) in Ex.PW3/C1 i.e Defence Plan (Air Wing) Ex.PW3/E1 issued by Deptt. of Defence Planning is a 'restricted' document and gives the overview of Force structure and planning. It was opined that the information contained in this document, if disclosed to unauthorised person can be prejudicial to the safety, security and interest of country. It was further opined that the information can be useful to enemy country. Similarly, the documents at Columns No.(c),(d) and (e) in Ex.PW3/C1 which are 'Air Force Tactical Doctrine', 'Air Force Modernisation' and 'Israel's Cooperation to India's Defence' were also opined by Captain Rahul Dhar as 'secret' and as the information contained in these documents were opined as useful to enemy country.
20 In the present case, prosecution has also examined Commander U. K. Bhardwaj, Directorate of Naval Intelligence, Naval HQs. Sena Bhawan, New Delhi as PW5. He has identified the signature of Sunil Bhatia the then Commander on the letter Ex.PW5/A. He has also identified the signature of Captain Iwan K. Joseph and DCV Dhruv Acharaya on the letters Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively. A perusal of letter Ex.PW5/B shows that the document 'Eastern Naval Command, Telephone Directory Nov.2001' was opined as 'restricted' one. It was held by Captain Iwan K. Joseph that the information contained in the telephone directory would be directly or indirectly useful for the enemy. Similarly, the document "Navy Uniform' was also held as 'secret' by DCV Dhruv Acharya vide report Ex.PW5/C. In cross examination by accused PW5 has denied that the documents about which the opinion was given by Cpt. Iwan K. Joseph and DCV Dhruv Acharya were not restricted one.
21 In the present case, computer Hard Disc recovered from the house of accused has been sent by the IO of the case to the office of Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, Hyderabad for examination. Prosecution has examined Sh. Krishna Sastry Pendyala, Asstt. Govt. Examiner, Computer Forensic Division (GEQD), Hyderabad as PW15. This witness has deposed that on 4.3.03 Hard Disc was received from Deputy Commissioner of Police, Spl. Cell (sb), Delhi vide office letter No. 408/SO/DCP Spl. Cell dated 01.03.03, in the office, in sealed cover, having the seal of HC (Hukam Chand). The computer Hard Disc was forensicly imaged, partition wise, by using Encase3.20 version. The data was retrieved from the Hard Disc. The report dated 24.03.03 was sent to DCP, Spl. Cell vide office letter Ex.PW15/A. The letter was duly signed by the then Govt. Examiner late Sh. R. K. Jain. PW15 has identified the signatures of Sh. R. K. Jain as he has seen him writing and signing in the course of official duty. PW15 has further deposed that he alongwith his colleague Sh. M. Krishna, Asstt. Govt. Examiner, also examined the case independently and prepared the report, which is Ex.PW15/B. PW15 has also identified the signatures of Sh. M. Krishna on the report Ex. PW15/B on each page as he has been working with him for the last 15 years. He has further deposed that the data recovered from the Hard Disc was enclosed with the report Ex.PW15/B. The data comprises in annexure 'A' to 'E' consisting of 250 pages. The data has been collectively exhibited as Ex.PW15/C1 to Ex.PW15/C250.
22 A perusal of the report Ex.PW15/B shows that the Hard Disc was containing various 'restricted', 'secret' and 'Top Secret' information, which were relating to the Atomic energy development, Minutes of Cabinet Meeting, Details of Intelligence Bureau Directory, Details about the report on Kashmir by internal security ministry, the details about nuclear command, details of International Collaboration by DAE 2000, details about nuclear strategy for power generation, dimension of nuclear bombs, details about the electronic Corporation of India, Details about deployment of Indian Army, 2002 and details about the Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence, Production and supplies etc. 23 In the present case, the recovery of 68 documents and CPU alongwith two cassettes has been effected in the presence of two public witnesses. One of the witness is Chander Mohan, who has been examined as PW1. This witness has not fully supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. It is settled law that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be brushed aside and can be taken into consideration to the extent so long as it supports the prosecution case. In the present case, PW1 has admitted that documents recovered by the police in his presence, were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/A. Police also seized CPU and two cassettes vide memo Ex.PW1/C. 24 Other public witness to the recovery is PW4 Praveen Kumar . He has fully supported the prosecution story and identified the case proprty i.e documents Ex.P1 to P68, two cassettes as Ex.P69 and Ex.P40 respectively. In crossexamination by accused he has deposed that son of accused had come to call him.
25 In the present case PW2 HC Vivek Tyagi, PW12 Inspector Brahamjit Singh, PW13 Inspector Desh Raj Yadav and PW17 Inspector A.S. Rawat are the members of raiding party in whose presence the accused was apprehended alongwith scooter No. DL6SH0660 when he was going to Pak High Commission. All the recovery witnesses namely, PW2, PW12, PW13 & PW17 have supported the prosecution story. The testimonies of these PWs are corroborated with the testimony of each other. The testimonies of these witnesses cannot be disbelived only on the ground that they are police officials. After the arrest of accused at the spot, he was taken to his house. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, 68 documents, CPU and two cassettes have been recovered from his house. It is wroth noting that the CPU and scooter have already been taken by the accused on superdari. It is worth noting that the scooter, seized by the police, in the present case, belongs to the son of accused as per the testimony of PW8 Sh. Samuel.
26 In the present case the accused obtained the copy of Babha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) by representing himself to be the Dy. Secretary Education, Govt. of India as per the testimony of PW10 Dr. Vijay Kumar. In this case, the photographs Ex.PW14/A1 to A3 have also been recovered from the house of accused. As per the testimony of PW14 Sh. Vivek Jeph, Under Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, he examined the said photographs from the record available with the protocol. After verifying the record, PW14 Sh. Vivek Jeph filed the detailed reply vide Ex.PW14/A. As per the record, Group Capt. Farhad Hussain standing at position 'X1' in photograph Ex.PW4/A1 was posted as Air Attache during the period 1996 in Pakistan High Commission. Mr. Ashraf Jhangir Qazi standing at position 'X2' in photograph Ex.PW14/A2 was posted as High Commissioner of Pakistan, High Commission New Delhi from March, 1997 to May, 2002 and Brig. Mr. Talat Munir standing at position 'X3' in photograph Ex.PW14/A3 was posted as Defence and Army attache in Pakistan High Commission, New Delhi.
27 In crossexamination by accused PW14 has deposed that he gave his report afer examining and matching the officials of Pakistan with the photographs available on record and on the basis of identity cards issued to them. He denied that Pak officials as shown in the photographs were not posted in Delhi during the period as mentioned in the report. 28 All these facts show that accused was having some connection with Pakistan officials posted in Pakistan High Commission. These facts further strengthens the prosecution story that on 24.02.03 he was going to Pakistan High Commission to communicate documents, seized vide memo Ex.PW13/A. In the present case the recovery witnesses could tell the colour of scooter seized vide memo Ex.PW13/C. I am of the considered view that this fact will not materially effect the prosecution case as the same is a minor omission.
29 In the present case, the defence taken by the accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C is that the documents seized by the police are available in the books, which are easily available in the market. To prove his defence, accused has examined five witnesses. DW5 Sh. Sanjay Sharma has deposed that the documents on record are from the open books i.e 'Deployment of Indian Army', 'The war that never was', 'The Modernisation of Indian Air Force', 'Defence Year book of India' and 'Guided Weapons System Design'. However, in crossexamination by ld. Addl. P.P DW5 has deposed that he could not find any of the documents, seized by the police, to be part of the books brought by him.
30 DW4 Sh. Phool Singh has also brought some catalogues of books during his testimony but in crossexamination he has deposed that the catalogue/book which he brought do not contain any document or the copy thereof which was seized by the police The other DWs have also deposed in their crossexamination that they are not aware of the documents, which were recovered from accused on 24.2.03 at about 5.20 PM, when accused was apprehended by the police of Spl. Cell at Cross Road No.3, Near Pak High Commission.
31 In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt U/S 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1923. Accordingly, accused is convicted for the offence U/s 3 of Official Secrets Act. However, no case is made U/S 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the offence U/S 9 of Official Secrets Act.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON (SMT. BIMLA KUMARI)
18.01.10 Addl.Sessions Judge(North):Delhi
IN THE COURT OF SMT. BIMLA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(NORTH):DELHI
S.C. No.61/15.04.09
State
Vs
Onkar Nath Kalia
S/o Late Sh. Khushal Chand
B1328, Shastri Nagar
Delhi.
FIR NO: 18/2003
PS: Special Cell
U/S 3 O.S Act
Arguments heard: 19.01.10
Judgment announced: 21.01.10
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1 In the present case accused Omkar Nath Kalia has been
convicted in respect of of offence U/S 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 vide my separate judgment on 18.01.10.
2 I have heard arguments on the point of sentence from ld. counsel for accused/convict and ld. Addl. P. P for State. 3 Ld. counsel for accused/convict has prayed for a lenient view by submitting that accused is 75 years old and he is suffering from old age diseases. His wife is also not keeping good health. Ld. counsel for accused/convict has prayed for a minium sentence be imposed upon the accused/convict. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. P.P has prayed for imposition of maximum punishment as the matter pertains to the security and integrity of India.
4 Clause (c) sub section (1) to Section 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1923 provides an imprisonment of 14 years, if the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation to any secret official code. 5 Section 3 (1)of the Official Secrets Act,1923 is reproduced here for ready reference:
(1)If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State
(a)approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place; or
(b)makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy; or
(c)obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy or which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend, where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation to any secret official code, to fourteen years and in other cases to three years.
6 In the present case, I have already held in my judgment announced on 18.1.101 that the accused/convict has obtained and collected certain documents/information, which were directly or indirectly useful to enemy country and disclosure of which would directly effect the sovereignty and integrity of India and friendly relations with foreign state . In the present case, the documents seized by the police were containing the material, which were related to naval, military and air force affairs of the Govt. Since accused has committed the offence in relation to naval, military and air foce affairs of the Govt. he is liable to punishment of 14 years. 7 In Ravji @ Ram Chander V. State of Rajasthan JT 1995 (8)SC 520 it was held that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The court will be failing in its duty, if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal.
8 In the present case, accused/convict has committed an offence not against the society but against the nation . Keeping in view the nature of offence, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years. It is ordered that accused will be entitled to the benefit U/S 428 Cr.P.C. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON (SMT. BIMLA KUMARI)
21.01.10 Addl.Sessions Judge(North):Delhi