Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Jaidev, S/o. Sh. Nafe Singh and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.A. 798 of 2025, Crl.A. 833 of 2025
Decided On : 31-07-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. Shoaib Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Vikas Bhardwaj.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.N. Sharma & Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates, Mr. Satyam Thareja & Mr. Shaurya Katoch, Advocates, Mr. Shalabh Gupta & Ms. Vandita Gupta, Advocates.
The court affirmed that severe offences by law enforcement officers necessitate harsh sentencing to maintain public trust and ensure compliance with the law.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294, 354-A, 509 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 12 - Conviction for sexual offences by police officials - Convicts subjected to harsh sentencing due to nature of offences, with no leniency warranted considering repeated misconduct and implications on the complainants' lives. (Paras 1, 30, 31, 36)
(B) Sentencing - Appropriate and proportional sentencing should balance retributive and rehabilitative theories, ensuring public confidence and maintaining law and order - The act of officials in abusing their positions demands a strict punitive approach instead of leniency. (Paras 22, 25)
Facts of the case:
The convicts, all police officials, were found guilty of sexually harassing their neighbor and her child over several years, resulting in multiple FIRs against them by the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court imposed rigorous imprisonment for varying lengths across the offences committed by the convicts, mandating that sentences run concurrently.
Issues: The main issues included the justification for sentencing considering the nature of the offences, the repeated misconduct of the convicts, and their responsibilities as law enforcement officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the gravity of the offences committed by law enforcement officials warrants a strict approach to sentencing that prioritizes public safety and deters future misconduct.
Result: Appeals disposed off; convicts sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines.
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. This Court vide Judgment dated 28.05.2025, has convicted the Respondent/Jaidev for the offences punishable under Section 294/354- A/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as“IPC”) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”). The Respondents, Suraj Bhan @ Monu and Jagmal have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 354-A/509/34 IPC.
2. The Respondent No.1/Convict Jaidev in his Affidavit has submitted that he has been suffering from Mental Disorder and has been taking treatment from Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS). He was discharged/compulsorily retired from Delhi Police. He tried to find work, but could not get any regular job. He does odd jobs as his health permits and has no regular professional income.
3. His wife is 54 years old who suffers from High Blood Pressure, Osteoporosis, Cervical etc. His son, Suraj Bhan has also been convicted in this case. He also had aged parents of about 85 years of age who suffer from various old age ailments. He has two brothers who help in taking care of his parents. One of the brother is Respondent No.2/Jagmal Singh who has also been convicted in the present FIR.
4. The Convict/Jaidev further submits that he has not been convicted in any other offence except in the present case. In the last nine years to his knowledge, no fresh Complaint has been filed by the Complainant or her family member against him despite being neighbours.
5. It is submitted that the incident happened 12 years ago and he had throughout cooperated with the Authorities and the Judicial system.
6. The RespondentNo.2/Convict Jagmal in his Affidavit has stated that he is 55 years old. His wife is 50 years old and he has a daughter and a son aged 18 years and 15 years, respectively.
7. His wife suffers from Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc/Herniated or Slip Disc, Lower Respiratory Tract Infection and Vertigo. His aged parents are around 85 years of age. His father suffers from UTI/renal failure and has to be hospitalized regularly. The Discharge Summary of his father Shri Nafe Singh dated 05.02.2025 and 20.05.2025 are annexed with the Affidavit. His mother also suffers from renal failure and is getting treatment at Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
8. It is submitted that he himself is a heart patient and has been diagnosed with hypokinetic basal anterior septum which is reduced movement of the heart’s basal anterior septum i.e. a specific region of the heart’s wall. His left ventricular ejection fraction is 45%.
9. The Convict Jagmal has further submitted that he is 12th pass and is the sole bread earner of the family. He is in Government job since 2002 and is currently working as a Constable in Delhi Police. He has been rewarded and given commendations by his Superior, for the work done by him. He has never ever been convicted in any other offence except the present case.
10. The FIR was registered in May, 2013 i.e. 12 years ago and he has co-operated with the Authorities and Judicial system throughout this period.
11. The Respondent No.4/Convict Suraj Bhan Singh in his Affidavit has submitted that he is 36 years old while his wife is 31 years of age and he has three children aged 13 years, 9 years and 1.5 years respectively.
12. His parents are dependent upon him and they do not have any professional income. His father suffers from Mental Disorder for which he has been given treatment from Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS) and his mother also suffers from various ailments.
13. The Convict, Suraj Bhan further submits that he is a graduate having done B.A. (Hons.) Political Science from Delhi University. He is the sole bread earner of the family being in Government employment since 2009 and is working as Head Constable in Delhi Police In the past 9 years and more, there is no fresh Complaint filed against hi
