* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: June 16, 2017
+ CRL.A. 218/2014
RANJEET SINGH ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae
Counsel with Mr. Jatin Rajput,
DHCLSC panel counsel
Mr. Himanshu Jain, Advocate
Versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State SI Rajendera, Police Station
Vikas Puri
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
1. Impugned judgment of 28th October, 2013 holds appellant guilty of
the offences under Sections 376/354 IPC and vide impugned order of 11 th
November, 2013, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for ten years with fine of `50,000/- with default clause for offence under
Section 376 IPC and for offence under Section 354 IPC, appellant has
been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of
Crl.A.218/2014 Page 1 of 4
`10,000/- with default clause. The aforesaid two sentences have been
directed by the trial court to run concurrently.
2. The crux of prosecution case, as culled out from impugned
judgment, is as under:-
As per the allegations of the prosecution, accused
Ranjeet Singh on 02.03.2011 at 9:00 p.m. at WZ-36 Bodella,
Vikas Puri, had committed rape on the prosecutrix; again on
03.03.2011 at about 7:00 a.m. in the abovesaid premises, the
accused used criminal force upon the prosecutrix intending to
outrage her modesty.
3. Apart from the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1), there is evidence of
her husband (PW-2) and that of forensic expert, the medical evidence and
the remaining evidence is of police officials. WSI Vandana (PW-7) is the
Investigating Officer of this case. The stand taken by appellant-accused
before the trial court is as under:-
“A few days prior to 03.03.2011, may be on 25-
26.02.2011 when I was cleaning outside my house, some water
had gone towards the house of prosecutrix due to which she
had become annoyed. She has implicated in this false case as
she was annoyed with me. She has implicated me in false case
in collusion with the interpretor in order to extort money from
me.”
4. Trial court while relying upon the prosecution version has
discarded the afore-noted stand of appellant and has convicted and
sentenced him, as noticed herein above. At the outset, learned counsel for
Crl.A.218/2014 Page 2 of 4
appellant submits on the day of incident, appellant was aged about 40
years and was earning livelihood as Security Guard and he has a wife and
two minor children to support and that despite the bail order, appellant
due to poverty could not come out of the jail and that the minimum
sentence for the offence of rape in the instant case is seven years and by
now, appellant has already undergone sentence of more than seven years.
Attention of this Court is drawn to appellant’s Nominal Roll of 9 th June,
2017 placed on record by respondent-State, to submit that keeping in
view that appellant is not involved in any other case and his conduct in
jail has been satisfactory, the sentence awarded to appellant deserves to
be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
supports the impugned order and submits that although the minimum
sentence for main offence in question is seven years but in the facts and
circumstances of this case, the sentence awarded to appellant-accused is
just and proper and does not call for any interference.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment, evidence on
record and Nominal Roll of 9th June, 2017, I find that the conviction of
appellant is well merited. However, order on sentence needs to be varied.
Considering the fact that appellant is in jail for last more than seven years
with remissions and Nominal Roll of 9th June, 2017 of appellant indicates
that his conduct in jail has been satisfactory and he is not involved in any
other case and also that appellant is a poor person, who has family
responsibilities to shoulder, the substantive sentence awarded to appellant
for offences under Sections 376/354 IPC is reduced from ten years to
Crl.A.218/2014 Page 3 of 4
seven years and period over and above seven years is treated as period in
default of payment of fine.
7. The impugned judgment of 28th October, 2013, is upheld while
modifying the impugned order on sentence of 11 th November, 2013 to the
extent indicated above. Appellant be released forthwith, if not wanted in
any other case.
8. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent to
apprise appellant about the fate of his appeal and for compliance.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
June 16, 2017
r
Crl.A.218/2014 Page 4 of 4
