SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tejinder Singh @ Lucky Singh vs State Of Delhi on 10 May, 2018

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON : 6th JANUARY, 2018
DECIDED ON : 10th MAY, 2018

+ CRL.A. 267/2013
TEJINDER SINGH @ LUCKY SINGH ….. Appellant
Through : Mr.Rahul Sahdev, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through : Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP.

+ CRL.A. 365/2013
VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY SINGH THRU. HIS COUSIN
PAIROKAR BALJEET SINGH ….. Appellant
Through : Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through : Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 04.01.2013 of learned
Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.34/2012 arising out of FIR
No.32/2012 Police Station Shahbad Dairy by which the appellants –
Tejinder Singh @ Lucky Singh (A-1) and Vikram Singh @ Vicky
Singh (A-2) were convicted for committing offences punishable under
Sections 376(2)(g)/506 IPC, they have preferred the aforesaid appeals.
By an order dated 05.01.2013, A-1 was sentenced to undergo RI for

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 1 of 18
ten years with fine `1 lac under Section 376(2)(g) IPC; RI for two
years under Section 506 IPC; A-2 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for life with fine `1 lac under Section 376(2)(g) IPC; RI
for two years under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were to
operate concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as projected in the
charge-sheet was that about 4 or 5 months before 28.01.2012 and on
several other occasions at C-105/106, Sector-5, Bawana Industrial
Area, Delhi, the appellants committed gang-rape upon the prosecutrix
‘X’ (assumed name) aged around 13 years and criminally intimidated
her. On 28.01.2012, FIR was lodged at Police Station Shahbad Dairy
on the statement (Ex.PW-10/A) of the prosecutrix. She informed the
police that her father used to run a tea stall in front of C-105; she used
to sit on the said shop after return from school in the absence of her
father when he used to take her mother to the hospital for medical
treatment. She further informed that both the appellants were owners
of C-106 and she used to visit them to serve tea in the office as and
when called. She further disclosed that about 4 to 5 months back,
when she had gone to their office, the appellants caught hold of her;
removed her clothes and committed rape upon her one by one. She
was criminally intimidated and threatened not to disclose the incident
to anybody or else she would face dire consequences. Whenever her
father was away to the hospital, the appellants used to commit rape
upon her.

3. The prosecutrix named Deepak Kumar Shah (facing trial
before Juvenile Justice Board) a foreman at C-104 who also

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 2 of 18
committed rape upon her when she had gone to the roof of her house
to dry clothes. She claimed that the appellants and Deepak Kumar
Shah regularly sexually assaulted her for 4 – 5 months putting her in
fear. About 10 to 12 days prior to the lodging of the complaint, she
became ill and her father took her to a doctor who noticed that she was
pregnant. When her father insisted to disclose the names of the
perpetrators of the crime, she divulged all the facts to him in detail.
She was thereafter taken to the Police Station to record her statement.

4. During investigation, the prosecutrix was medically
examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The appellants and
Deepak Kumar Shah were arrested. Deepak Kumar Shah being
juvenile was sent to face trial before Juvenile Justice Board.
Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.
Exhibits collected during investigation were sent for examination to
Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon completion of investigation, a
charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court.

5. To bring home the appellants’ guilt, the prosecution
examined twenty-three witnesses in all and relied upon several
documents. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants denied
their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW-1
(Darshan Singh) appeared in their defence. The trial resulted in the
appellants’ conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been preferred.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
have examined the file minutely.

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 3 of 18

7. At the outset, it may be mentioned that on 28.01.2012
when the victim was taken for medical examination before PW-12
(Dr.S.N.Siddharth), he noticed that the victim was pregnant. She was
referred to Senior Resident (Gynae) for further examination and
management. PW-11 (Dr.Neha Kumari) examined the victim at 05.30
p.m. that day and gave her observations on the MLC (Ex.PW-11/A) at
the encircled portion from point ‘X’ to ‘X1’. The victim was at an
advanced stage of pregnancy. All visible symptoms and character of a
pregnant woman were present. Undisputedly, the victim gave birth to
a male child on 23.03.2012 at Maharishi Valmiki Hospital. DNA test
was conducted to ascertain as to who was the biological father of the
child. PW-13 (A.K.Shrivastava) proved DNA report (Ex.PW-13/A).
It was reported that source of Ex.9 (blood sample of A-2) was
biological father of source of Ex.1 (blood on gauze piece of new born
child). Apparently A-2 against whom there were specific allegations
by the prosecutrix to have established physical relations with her was
ascertained to be the father of the new born child of the victim. It is
informed that at present the child is in some private orphanage in
Haryana.

8. Appellants’ conviction is based upon the sole testimony
of the prosecutrix. This Court is conscious that solitary statement of
the victim is sufficient to record conviction and no further
corroboration is required. The victim’s testimony, however, must
inspire confidence.

9. In Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. State of Assam (2010) 12
SCC 115, observing that a case of sexual assault has to be proved

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 4 of 18
beyond reasonable doubt as any other case and that there is no
presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story
truthfully, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held :

“Though the statement of proseuctrix must
be given prime consideration, at the same time,
broad principle that the prosecution has to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally
to a case of rape and there could be no
presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell
the entire story truthfully. In the instant case, not
only the testimony of the victim woman is highly
disputed and unreliable, her testimony has been
thoroughly demolished by the deposition of DW-1.

10. In another case Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008)
15 SCC 133, the Supreme Court stated that the testimony of a victim
of rape has to be tested as if she is an injured witness but cannot be
presumed to be a gospel truth.

“It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the
greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but
at the same time a false allegation of rape can
cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to
the accused as well. The accused must also be
protected against the possibility of false
implication, particularly where a large number of
accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in
mind that the broad principle is that an injured
witness was present at the time when the incident
happened and that ordinarily such a witness would
not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is
no presumption or any basis for assuming that the
statement of such a witness is always correct or
without any embellishment or exaggeration.”

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 5 of 18

11. In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delhi,
(2012) 8 SCC 21, the Supreme Court commented about the quality of
the sole testimony of the prosecutrix which could be made basis to
convict the accused. It held :

“In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’
should be of a very high quality and caliber whose
version should, therefore, be unassailable. The
Court considering the version of such witness
should be in a position to accept it for its face
value without any hesitation. To test the quality of
such a witness, the status of the witness would be
immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a
witness. What would be more relevant would be
the consistency of the statement right from the
starting point till the end, namely, at the time when
the witness makes the initial statement and
ultimately before the Court. It should be natural
and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua
the accused. There should not be any prevarication
in the version of such a witness. The witness
should be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and strenuous it may be
and under no circumstance should give room for
any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the
persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it.
Such a version should have co-relation with each
and everyone of other supporting material such as
the recoveries made, the weapons used, the
manner of offence committed, the scientific
evidence and the expert opinion. The said version
should consistently match with the version of every
other witness. It can even be stated that it should
be akin to the test applied in the case of

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 6 of 18
circumstantial evidence where there should not be
any missing link in the chain of circumstances to
hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged
against him. Only if the version of such a witness
qualifies the above test as well as all other similar
such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a
witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose
version can be accepted by the Court without any
corroboration and based on which the guilty can
be punished. To be more precise, the version of the
said witness on the core spectrum of the crime
should remain intact while all other attendant
materials, namely, oral, documentary and material
objects should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the Court trying the
offence to rely on the core version to sieve the
other supporting materials for holding the offender
guilty of the charge alleged.”

12. In Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2009) 15 SCC 566, the Supreme Court held :

‘It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the
Prosecutrix must be given predominant
consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to
be accepted even if the story is improbable and
belies logic, would be doing violence to the very
principles which govern the appreciation of
evidence in a criminal matter.’

13. In the instant case, there is inordinate delay in lodging the
FIR. Physical relations were established with the prosecutrix on
several occasions at several places. However, before lodging the FIR
on 28.01.2012, the victim did not disclose her ordeal to her parents or
any other family members any time. She did not raise any alarm or

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 7 of 18
hue and cry any time at the time of sexual assault or soon thereafter.
Even after the commission of the crime, she did not divulge anything
to her parents at home and maintained complete silence. Record
reveals that when she was taken for the first time to the doctor on her
complaint of ill-health, she was having eight months pregnancy. It is
highly unbelievable that the victim or her parents were not aware that
she was having a pregnancy of eight months duration. PW-11
(Dr.Neha Kumari) in her examination informed that during her
medical examination ‘X’ was found to have eight months pregnancy.
In the cross-examination, she disclosed that at the time of her visit, all
visible symptoms and character of a pregnant woman were there on
X’s body. The abdomen was distending about 32 weeks and it was
clearly visible. The fetal heart sound was present and found regular.
‘X’ did not complain to her any other illness. It is unthinkable that
victim’s parents were unaware about the visible symptoms showing
‘X’ to be pregnant. It is not clear as to why victim’s parents ignored
all these visible features and did not confront the prosecutrix.
Victim’s conduct is also unreasonable and unacceptable. As per PW-
11’s testimony, the prosecutrix was having a good I.Q. level. There
was no plausible reason to suppress the pregnancy for so long. The
delay in reporting the incident to the police has remained unexplained.

14. In the FIR, the victim named the appellants to have
committed rape upon her when she was called by them to their office
to serve tea. She, however, did not give detailed particulars as to the
date and time when for the first time she was sexually assaulted.
Allegedly, the appellants established physical relations with her on

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 8 of 18
several occasions thereafter. However, at no stage, she apprised her
parents about her defilement. She did not exhibit any abnormal
conduct. In the FIR, she also accused Deepak Kumar Shah, a juvenile,
to have established physical relations with her on the roof when she
had gone to spread clothes. Again, Deepak Kumar Shah is alleged to
have established physical relations with her several times. It does not
appeal to mind that due to fear or threat, the victim was unable to
bring it to the notice of her parents about the heinous crime.

15. In her Court statement as PW-10, ‘X’ deposed that on a
day when her parents were away and she was sitting at the tea stall,
the appellants, owners of the factory, where her father used to work as
Chowkidar asked her to bring tea to their office. She prepared tea and
took it to their office. When she was returning after serving tea, A-1
caught hold of her and A-2 closed / shut the door; A-2 removed her
clothes. A-1 forcibly committed rape upon her and thereafter, it was
committed by A-2. She raised alarm and cried but the appellants did
not leave her. Her voice could not be heard outside due to noise of the
machines operating in the factory. After the crime, the appellants
asked her to wear clothes. Since she was unwilling to go after the
incident, the appellants forcibly put her clothes ‘on’ and asked her to
leave. They threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to
anybody. She further disclosed that the appellants committed rape
upon her whenever her parents were away to the hospital. She also
deposed about commission of rape by Deepak Kumar Shah (facing
trial before Juvenile Justice Board). Victim’s testimony qua Deepak
Kumar Shah need not be elaborated here, he being on trial before

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 9 of 18
Juvenile Justice Board. The victim continued to state that one day
when she fell ill, she was taken to a doctor by her parents who
informed them about her pregnancy about 7 to 8 months. She then
informed as to what the appellants and Deepak had done with her.
Her statement (Ex.PW-10/A) came to be recorded at the Police
Station. She also recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-10/E).
In the cross-examination, she admitted that the incident was not
reported to her parents, teachers or friends. At the time of incident,
the appellants had two workers working in the factory. The appellants
lived at Rohini and used to come together to the factory by their
vehicle. The family members of the appellants were visitors to the
factory to perform religious ceremonies during festivals. She denied
that no such incident had taken place at any point of time or the
appellants have been falsely implicated. She elaborated that on the
day of incident her younger brother was with her at the tea stall but
had gone out to play. She was fair to admit that after the incident
when she came back to the tea stall, she did not tell her brother or
anybody else as to what had happened. She was unable to tell as to
how many times she was ravished by the appellants. She volunteered
to add that it was repeated several times. In response to a Court
question if anybody else had committed rape or sexually exploited her,
she disclosed that five individuals were involved and two of them
were Rajesh and Girish; they were Chowkidars of the factory and had
established physical relations with her. Rajesh and Girish lived on the
top floor of the same factory. She volunteered that they used to call
her to the top floor to make physical relations with her on many

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 10 of 18
occasions. She denied the suggestion that she was to get married with
Deepak. She was unable to disclose as to to whom the newly born
child belonged explaining that it was not possible as all the accused
including Rajesh and Girish used to make relations with her regularly.
She denied if it was an attempt to extort money from the appellants or
that her statement was at the behest of her parents.

16. From the sequence of evidence discussed above, it can be
inferred with certainty that the prosecutrix is not at all consistent. She
has given conflicting and divergent versions at different stages of
investigation / trial. Initially, she did not bring it to the notice of her
parents or family members her ordeal at any stage; no such incident
was reported to the police. The prosecutrix continued to have physical
relations with the appellants subsequently without demur or protest.
She continued to visit the office of the appellants in the factory as and
when called without any hitch. Nothing prevented the prosecutrix to
avoid visiting the appellants at the place where she was ravished. Not
only that, the prosecutrix established physical relations with one
Deepak too in similar circumstances. For the first time in her Court
statement she implicated two other individuals Rajesh and Girish to
have exploited her for sexual favour. During investigation, the
investigating agency could not trace the whereabouts of those
individuals and they were not charge-sheeted for the said crime. At no
stage, the prosecutrix or her family members got her medically
examined. No visible injuries whatsoever were found on her private
organs to infer forcible rape; she did not suffer any injury on her body
to infer if any time any resistance was offered by her.

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 11 of 18

17. What was the age of the prosecutrix on the day of
occurrence is a mystery. The prosecutrix was a school going child and
had studied up to 6th standard. However, the investigating agency did
not collect any school record to ascertain her date of birth recorded
therein. The impugned judgment records that since there was no
authentic document on record regarding the age of the prosecutrix, on
the directions of the Court, ossification / age determination test was
got conducted. As per ossification report (Ex.PW-15/A) proved by
PW-15 (Dr.Shipra Rampal), PW-16 (Dr.Abhilasha), PW-17 (Dr.Niyati
Srivastava) and PW-18 (Dr.Javed Salam), her approximate age was
ascertained to be between 17 to 18 years as on 13.07.2012. It is
pertinent to note that the victim had disclosed her age around 13 years
in her complaint (Ex.PW-10/A); and in 164 Cr.P.C. statement
[Ex.PX3 (collectively)] recorded on 29.01.2012 without giving
specific date of birth. Similar is the age recorded in MLC (Ex.PW-
11/A). In the Court statement ‘X’ did not disclose her exact date of
birth. She informed to be studying in 5 th class in Ganesh Public
School but did not state as to what exact date of birth was recorded in
the school record. Again, she gave her age as 13 years at the time of
her examination on 14.08.2012. PW-20 (Sunil Kumar) – her father
merely testified that her daughter ‘X’ was aged around 13 years.
Nothing was divulged as to what was the exact date of birth of the
prosecutrix. No supporting document like birth certificate or school
record was produced or proved by him. Similar is the testimony of
PW-21 (Ravindra Kumar Robin) – victim’s uncle. Apparently, the
victim and her family members attempted to conceal the exact age of

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 12 of 18
the prosecutrix which was crucial to ascertain the guilt of the
perpetrators of the crime. Huge gap between the age relied upon by
the prosecution and the one found in the ossification report has
remained unexplained.

18. Settled position is that ossification test is not a sure test
and it admits margin of two years on either side; it only gives opinion
about the approximate age of a person and it cannot be an exact age.
The opinion of the doctor based upon such a test cannot be regarded as
a conclusive evidence. Apparently, the prosecutrix was above 16 years
of age on the day when physical relations were established with her.

19. From the circumstances described above, it can safely be
inferred that the prosecutrix was a consenting party throughout.
Physical relationship (if any) was with her free consent. It is not the
case of the prosecution that the victim was unable to understand the
consequence of her act of having physical relations with others due to
her low I.Q.; no credible evidence has emerged to substantiate this.
The prosecutrix was regularly performing her duties at the shop in the
absence of her father; she was regular to attend her school classes.

20. PW-11 (Dr.Neha Kumari) in the MLC (Ex.PW-11/A)
noted that the I.Q. level of the patient was good. The victim’s version
that she was criminally intimidated and put in fear which forced her to
maintain complete silence does not appeal to mind. The appellants
were not armed with any weapon to create real apprehension in the
mind of the prosecutrix not to reveal her plight to her parents.
Surprising, she carried pregnancy for long duration without any
complication.

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 13 of 18

21. During the course of hearing it was informed that the
prosecutrix has lodged FIR No.643/2015 on 28.05.2015 against her
father and brother implicating them for commission of rape upon her
on several dates. Seemingly, the said case is still pending before the
Trial Court for disposal. In the said complaint, the prosecutrix
claimed herself to be of 17 ½ years old.

22. In the impugned judgment, the Trial Court noted that the
prosecutrix was aged around 17 to 18 years. It, however, came to the
conclusion that since A-1 was owner of the factory where X’s father
was working as Chowkidar and A-2 was his employee for the last
many years, the appellants were in dominant position and the consent
of the prosecutrix under these circumstances cannot be considered
free. It further noted that prosecutrix was a ‘child’ under POCSO Act
which came into effect on 14.11.2012 to protect children from
offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. Under
the said Act, in Section 2(d) ‘child’ was defined as any person below
the age of 18 years. It further noted that POCSO Act being a special
Act seeks to address the issues regarding sexual exploitation and
sexual abuse of a child i.e. a person below 18 years. Since a ‘child’ is
not capable of giving the consent, it had no consequence. Relying
upon ‘Collier vs. Austin Health Ors.’, (2011) VSC 344, the learned
Trial Court held that though the penal provisions of this later
beneficial legislation cannot be applied retrospectively yet the intent
of the special legislation and its Charter has to be interpreted liberally
and in compatibility with the human rights and the rights of the
citizens so sought to be protected by the beneficial legislation. It was

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 14 of 18
held that the protective human rights legislation was beneficial and
remedial and hence the other existing general legislation can be read
in the light of the purpose of the special legislation. It agreed that
though POCSO Act will not operate in cases where the facts and
events occurred prior to the commencement of the Act but at the same
time even in the absence of such a legislation the statutory provisions
already in existence were required to be interpreted in a manner
compatible to the Human Rights / Child Rights. As on date, the
POCSO Act has come into force and hence it becomes the obligation
of the Court to interpret the provisions of the general law (Section 375
IPC) in the light of the Charter of the Protective Child Rights
Legislation. Accordingly, taking a cue from the legislative intent as
provided in the Charter of the Special Act (POCSO) which is to
protect all persons below 18 years as contemplated in POCSO Act, it
was held that the prosecutrix ‘X’ was a ‘child’ below 18 years and her
consent, if any, was immaterial (as the child was not capable of giving
any such consent). This approach, though bonafide to impart justice
to the victim who was allegedly sexually exploited by several people
over a period of time, cannot be countenanced. The provisions of
POCSO Act cannot be incorporated in the present proceedings as the
offence in question was committed before it came into force in
November, 2012. It was enacted, of course, to protect the children of
the country from the heinous offences of sexual assault, sexual
harassment and pornography. No law, however, can be interpreted so
as to frustrate the very basic rule of law. It is a settled principle of
interpretation of criminal jurisprudence that the provisions have to be

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 15 of 18
strictly construed and cannot be given a retrospective effect unless
legislative intent and expression are clear beyond ambiguity. Since
the alleged crime was committed before January, 2012 and the
POCSO Act came into force in the year 2012, the findings of the
learned Trial Court to take the age of the ‘prosecutrix’ as 18 years
under POCSO Act cannot be sustained. The provisions of such a
serious nature impinging upon the valuable rights of the accused,
cannot take retrospective effect.

23. Since the victim was more than 16 years of age at the
time of commission of the offence and physical relations (if any) were
with her consent, the appellants cannot be held guilty for commission
of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and the findings of the
Trial Court on that score cannot be sustained and are set aside.

24. In her statement, the prosecutrix repeatedly revealed that
over a period of time, she was sexually exploited by several people
including the appellants. She also named one Deepak facing trial
before Juvenile Justice Board. In the cross-examination, pursuant to
the court question, she also revealed names of two other individuals
Rajesh and Girish who had established physical relations with her.
There are no reasons to disbelieve the innocent statement given by the
prosecutrix. DNA finger printing report affirms that the child born to
the prosecutrix ‘X’ belonged to A-2; it lends credibility to her
statement. It demolishes the defence led by the appellants in the form
of DW-1 (Darshan Singh). Attempt was made by A-2 to urge that he
was a worker in the factory and had left it about 1 ½ year before. No
credible evidence has emerged on record if the victim ever demanded

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 16 of 18
any consideration / money from the appellants before offering herself
for sexual relationship. No evidence is on record if any attempt was
ever made by the victim to extort money any time. She rather silently
suffered the ordeal and carried the pregnancy unknowingly till the
child was delivered. This Court finds no reasons to disbelieve her
version that the appellants established physical relations with her on
several occasions and apparently exploited her innocence.

25. During the course of arguments, it was enquired as to
where the ‘infant’ was. It was informed that the infant was with some
private orphanage in Haryana. Record reveals that victim’s uncle had
filed Crl.A.No.376/2014 under Section 372 Cr.P.C. which was
disposed of by this Court by an order dated 04.08.2014.

26. During hearing, the counsel for the appellants, on
instructions, expressed willingness of the appellants to pay certain
reasonable amount for the welfare of the infant without prejudice.

27. Record reveals that the victim was granted compensation
of `5 lacs. The victim appeared along with her husband in
Crl.A.No.365/2013 on 13.04.2017 before this Court and informed that
she was married since 2015. She confirmed that she had received the
compensation of `5 lacs from DSLSA.

28. Since the victim who was below 18 years on the date of
incident was exploited and physical relations were established by the
appellants who were major and knew the consequences of their acts
whereby the poor girl became pregnant and delivered the child of A-2,
she is entitled for compensation for the maintenance of the ‘child’.

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 17 of 18

29. Accordingly, A-1 and A-2 shall pay `5 lacs and `8 lacs,
respectively in the form of FDRs in the name of the infant and shall
deposit it within four weeks before the Trial Court. The amount so
deposited in the name of the infant shall not be withdrawn till the child
becomes major, without the permission of the Trial Court. The Trial
Court, however, will be at liberty to release the amount before the said
period if so required to be utilized for the welfare of the child. This
payment is de-hors the other rights of the child or mother to claim
from the appellants.

30. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the appellants are
allowed in the above terms. The conviction and sentence recorded by
the learned Trial Court are set aside.

31. In case of non-compliance, the Trial Court shall initiate
necessary proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount.

32. The appellant(s), if in custody, shall be released forthwith
if not required to be detained in any other criminal case.

33. The Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the
copy of the order.

34. Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail.

(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE

(C.HARI SHANKAR)
JUDGE
MAY 10, 2018 / tr

Crl.A. 267/2013 connected appeal. Page 18 of 18

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation