Sandeep @ Amit vs State on 15 June, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: June 15, 2017

+ CRL.A. 590/2014

SANDEEP @ AMIT ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae

versus

STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional
Public Prosecutor with SI Ramesh
Kumar
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Impugned judgment of 20th February, 2014 holds appellant-
accused guilty for the offences under Sections 363/365/376/506 of IPC
and vide impugned order of 21st February, 2014, appellant has been
sentenced as under: –

(i) For the offence u/s 363 IPC, appellant Sandeep @
Amit is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
three years along with a fine of `2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand
only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for three
months.

(ii) For the offence u/s 365 IPC, appellant Sandeep
@ Amit is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of five years along with a fine of `2,000/- (Rs. Two
thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo
S.I. for three months.

Crl. Appeal 590/2014 Page 1 of 5

(iii) For the offence u/s 376 IPC, appellant Sandeep
@ Amit is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of ten years along with a fine of `5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand
only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for six
months.

(iv) For the offence u/s 506 IPC, appellant Sandeep
@ Amit is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of two years along with a fine of `2,000/- (Rs. Two
thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo
S.I. for three months.

Trial court has directed the above sentences shall run
concurrently.

The facts noted in impugned judgment are as under: –

“Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that on
20.02.2012 at about 7:30 PM, accused Sandeep @ Amit,
who was friend of one of the brothers of the prosecutrix,
kidnapped prosecutrix N, aged about 13 years, from her
house bearing No.C-4/8, LSC Market, Sultanpuri, Delhi, on
pretext that Komal, friend of prosecutrix, was calling her
and took her to a room at ground floor in a three storied
building, situated behind the Government School of C-6
Block, Sultanpuri, Delhi, where he forcibly confined her and
raped her against her wishes and consent. He further
criminally intimidated her and threatened to kill her in case
she raised alarm. As per the case of the prosecution, the
victim alerted her brother Rajan, who was searching for her
frantically by giving repeated calls on mobile phone of
accused, from the mobile phone of accused himself. The
brothers of prosecutrix reached the place, where accused
had confined her, and rescued her from clutches of the
accused. They also apprehended the accused at that place
itself and called the police. The case was registered on

Crl. Appeal 590/2014 Page 2 of 5
complaint made by victim N. The accused was arrested by
the police. During the course of investigation, accused as
well as prosecutrix were got medically examined and
samples collected from them, by respective doctors, were
sent to FSL. After completing investigation charge sheet
was prepared by the IO and filed in the Court through SHO
concerned. “

Trial court has relied upon evidence of prosecutrix (PW-6), her
grandmother (PW-3), medical evidence and other evidence on record to
convict and sentence appellant-accused as noted hereinabove. While
holding appellant-accused guilty, trial court has brushed aside the specific
stand taken by appellant, which is as under: –

“Q37. Do you want to say anything else?

Ans. I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in
this case. Whenever, I used to visit the house of prosecutrix
being a friend of her brother, prosecutrix used to take
Rs.10/20 from me for bringing chocolates and I used to
treat her as younger sister of my friend. On the day of
Shivratri, prosecutrix herself came to my house and at that
time, I was under the influence of Bhang and was not in my
senses. She took away Rs.1500/-, which I had got my wages
and his brother had reached at that place while searching
for her. When his brothers saw her coming out of my house,
she concocted a false story and falsely implicated me in the
present case. No such calls were made at my mobile phone
at that time.”

In pursuance of production warrants issued against appellant vide
last order, appellant has been produced in custody before the Court and
on his instructions, learned Amicus Curiae submits that afore-referred

Crl. Appeal 590/2014 Page 3 of 5
stand taken by appellant before trial court is the true version and that on
the day of this incident, appellant was aged 23 years and was working
with father of the prosecutrix and that appellant is a poor person and has
family responsibilities to shoulder and his family consists of his old and
ailing father and one younger brother to support and so, lenient view on
the quantum of sentence be taken.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supports
the impugned judgment and order on sentence, to submit that since
prosecutrix was aged more than 12 years at the time of incident, so
minimum sentence, which appellant is liable to undergo, is of seven
years. He further submits that as per appellant’s latest Nominal Roll, he
has undergone sentence of 6½ years approximately, but sentence less than
the minimum ought not to be awarded.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment, order on
sentence and the evidence on record, I find that conviction of appellant is
well merited, but while taking note of appellant’s stand before the trial
court and the fact that appellant is a poor person and has family
responsibilities to shoulder, it is deemed appropriate to marginally reduce
the sentence awarded to appellant by few months as the facts and
circumstances of this case provide special and adequate reasons to do so.
Such a course is being adopted because there is no other case pending
against appellant and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the substantive
sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone
by him i.e. more than 6½ years, which is marginally less than the
minimum sentence of 7 years.

Crl. Appeal 590/2014 Page 4 of 5

In view of the aforesaid, substantive sentence awarded to appellant
is modified to the extent as indicated above. Appellant is in custody. He
be released forthwith, if he has undergone the above modified sentence
and is not wanted in any other case. The concerned Jail Superintendent be
apprised of this judgment forthwith to ensure its compliance.

With aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JUNE 15, 2017
s

Crl. Appeal 590/2014 Page 5 of 5

READ  Mahendra Kumar vs The State Of M.P. on 27 June, 2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *