Jaidev v. State of NCT of Delhi

judgment, the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 10 years. In the present case, there is absolutely no ground for giving less than the minimum prescribed sentence to the appellant, who had no compunction in ravishing a girl of four years. The act

committed by him, besides being heinous, is horrible and repulsive. No words are enough to condemn such an act of absolute perversity. Therefore, I see no ground for reducing the sentence awarded to the appellant or to reduce the fine imposed upon him. I find no merit in the appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE JANUARY 29, 2010 RS/

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % Reserved on: 27th January, 2010 Date of Decision: 29th January, 2010 # JAIDEV ..... Appellant ! Through: Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Adv. versus $ STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI ..... Respondent ^ Through: Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP SI UmeshMalik, PS Mehruli * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? : V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 24th September, 2007 and the Order on Sentence dated 17th October, 2007, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or to undergo SI for three months in default. 2. In the night intervening 15/16th September, 2004, the Investigating Officer, SI Rajesh Kumar, on receipt of copy of DD No.32 regarding commission of rape with a girl aged about 3 years, from Police Control Room, went to Village Saidullajab, where he came to know that the prosecutrix had been taken to AIIMS Hospital. When the investigating officer reached AIIMS, the complainant Achhelal, father of the prosecutrix, met him there and lodged a complaint. Achhelal informed that on 15th April, 2004 at about 8.00 p.m., he accompanied by his wife, went to make a telephone call to his native village, leaving their children behind. When they returned back to their Jhuggi, their daughter was found missing. On enquiry, they came to know that their daughter had also followed them when they were going to make a telephone call. They started searching their daughter. One person informed them that he had heard the shrieks of a girl from the jungle. He, accompanied by others, went to jungle, where he heard the shrieks of his daughter. When he reached the spot, he saw, in the light of the mobile phone of one of his companions, that the appellant had gagged the mouth of his daughter and was forcibly raping her having removed her underwear. He rescued his daughter from that man, who was given beating by the public, and Police Control Room was informed. 3. The prosecutrix, though produced in the court on15th October, 2005, was not examined as the learned Additional Sessions Judge felt that she was not fully capable of answering the questions put to her and, therefore, could not be examined as a witnsess. The father of the prosecutrix was partly examined on 15th of October, 2005 when he started weeping and his further examination was deferred on that day. Thereafter, he was not produced by the prosecution as his wife stated in the court that her husband was not traceable for about 2/3 months. It was, in these circumstances, that his further statement could not be recorded. 4. The mother of the prosecutrix, Smt.Ramwati came in the witness box as PW-9 and stated that at about 8.00 p.m. she and her husband had gone to an STD Booth, to make a telephone call to her village. At that time, their children were sleeping inside their jhuggi. When they came back at about 8.30 p.m., the prosecutrix was found missing. On enquiry in the neighbourhood, they were informed that her daughter had followed them when they were going to make a telephone call. She raised an alarm and went in search of her daughter. She, accompanied by her husband, heard some noise from the bushes. One Sikh gentleman also came there and switched on his mobile to throw some light. They went to the bushes from where the sound was coming. From there, her husband dragged the prosecutrix from beneath the appellant. The underwear of her daughter had been removed and her mouth had been pressed by the appellant with his hand. The appellant was found wearing underwear and his pant was half open and was on the knees. He was caught by the public and was given a beating. The police was also informed and took the prosecutrix as well as the appellant to the hospital. She also stated that the accus