IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
Ismile - Appellant
Versus
The State Of NCT Delhi - Respondent
Crl.A. 295/2007
Decided on : 24-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 363, 366, 377, 34, 376, 375, 90– Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2), 313, 428 164 - Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Offence of rape - Right to silence - Nature of crime – Offence Punishable – Unnatural offences - Punishment for kidnapping - First Information Report - Appeals from Convictions -Raped by one or more in a group of persons - several persons in furtherance of common intention - Period of detention undergone by the accused. Central Government Act - Recording of confessions and statements -Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage -Whether there was any consent or not.
Finding of the Court: Court are of opinion that we need to provide further clarity on the same - Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzed on touch stone of three tests viz., crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality test - Crime test involves factors like extent of planning, choice of weapon, modus of crime, disposal modus (if any), role of accused, anti-social or abhorrent character of crime, state of victim - Criminal test involves assessment of factors such as age of criminal, gender of the criminal, economic conditions or social background of criminal, motivation for crime, availability of defense, state of mind, instigation by deceased or any one from deceased group, adequately represented in trial, disagreement by a appeal process, repentance, possibility of reformation, prior criminal record (not to take pending cases) and any other relevant factor (not an exhaustive list) – Court reiterate that in operating sentencing system, law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix – Court also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system to undermine public confidence in efficacy of law - It is duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner in which it was executed or committed - Court must not only keep in view rights of victim of crime but also society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.
Result: Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal is filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for setting aside judgment dated 19.01.2006 (herein referred to as the “impugned judgment”) and order on sentence dated 19.01.2006 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the “trial court”) passed in Sessions Case bearing no 53/2004 arising out of FIR bearing no 375/2003 registered under sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) at P.S Preet Vihar.
2. Briefly stated relevant facts as emerging from the record are that Mahender Kumar was residing at house bearing no 11-B, Parwana Road, Old Brij Puri, Delhi alongwith his family including daughter S who was born on 23.02.1988 and was a student of 10th Class in the year 2003. Ismile was working in a toy factory situated in front of the house of Mahender Kumar and used to tease S. Son 11.09.2003 at about 3:00 PM had gone to Sachdeva Book Shop situated at Chander Nagar and on the way Ismile asked S to talk with him and thereafter S accompanied him to some distance. Saidul who was friend of Ismile also came there after 10 minutes and both of them called an auto-rickshaw. They forcibly pushed S into auto-rickshaw and taken her to a house situated at Tugalpur near Noida which belonged to Mausi/Khala (maternal aunt) of Saidul. S was kept in the said house and on 12.09.2003 maternal aunt of the Saidul arranged another rented house in the same village where S was kept. Ismile committed sexual intercourse with several times during the period with effect from 11.09.2003 to 09.12.2003 forcibly.
2.1 Mahender Kumar searched S on 11.09.2003 but S could not be traced. Mahender Kumar (hereinafter called as “the complainant”) lodged a complaint regarding missing of Son 12.09.2003 to SI Kishan Kumar wherein the complainant suspected Ismile for missing of S. SI Kishan Kumar prepared rukka on the basis of complaint made by the complainant and FIR bearing no. 0375/2003 was got registered under section 363 IPC at P.S. Preet Vihar. The investigation in pursuance of FIR bearing no 0375/2003 was assigned to SI Kishan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigating Officer”). The complainant on 09.12.2003 received a call from STD booth situated in Noida regarding presence of S. Thereafter the complainant alongwith the Investigating Officer and other police officials went to Noida and searched STD booth which was found to be belonged to Lokesh. The complainant and the Investigating Officer met Lokesh who informed them about presence of S, Ismile and Saidul in a room and from where S was recovered. Ismile and Saidul were also found there and were arrested. The Investigating Officer during course of investigation collected school certificate in respect of S, S and Ismile were medically examined, exhibits were collected, statement of S was also recorded under section 164 of the Code. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet for offences punishable under sections 363/366/377/34 IPC before the concerned Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.
2.2 The case was ordered to be committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2004 charged the Ismile and Saidul for the offences punishable under sections 366/34 IPC and 365/34 IPC. Ismile was also charged for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC. Ismile and Saidul pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2.3 The prosecution in support of its case examined S as PW1, Sudesh Rani, mother of S as PW2, ASI Sheopal Singh as PW3, Ct. Satbir as PW4, Dr. Renu, Senior Resident, Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Delhi (LBS Hospital) as PW5, Dr. Rakesh Singh, CMO, LBS Hospital as PW6, HC Santosh as PW7, Smt. Parvinder, TGT, Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Radhey Shyam Park, Parwana Road as PW8, Lokesh as PW9, Mahender Kumar as PW10, SI Kishan Kumar as PW11 and Shri Amit Kumar, Me
Section 376(1) provides that Court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in judgment imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than 7 years.
Consent is immaterial in cases of minors under 16 years; sexual intercourse with a minor constitutes rape irrespective of their consent under Section 375 IPC.
Point of Law : Since said finding of Sessions Judge's Court is now proved to be erroneous and since prosecution has proved the alleged guilt of the accused for all the alleged offences beyond reason....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'consent' in the context of rape requires voluntary participation in the act, and mere submission does not amount to consent.
School records' date of birth entries admissible but not conclusive proof of age without evidence of basis; prosecution must prove victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt for statutory rape convict....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the age of the prosecutrix and the reliability of her testimony beyond reasonable doubt, along with th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.