Manoj v. State

order of sentence dated 31.8.2016 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, North (Rohini) whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 whereby the convict was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonmentfor a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 but no separate sentence was awarded to the convict for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code wittffthe fbenefit, of Section 428 of the t X'k: S i' P Cr.P.C., 1973 havingJbVen grantqd,^tp:itheconvict/^heDelhi State Legal ServicesAuthority (North'pistr^^^^ DeMfwas further directed to ensure that the amount of^Rsl-2i00',000/-was granfed to the victim as compensationto piJopd#refi4® and compensatory fInfill justice. j,||

¶2Theappellantis in c]astQdMan|fe^ro^^^ warrantswere issued fiw to procure his presence on 7.8.2018,

¶3The Trial Court Record has been requisitioned and perused.

¶4On behalf of the appellant^leamfed-Legal Aid counsel Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate,addressedhis submissions in support of the contentions made in the appeal to contend that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were wholly infirm and inconsistent and did not bring forth the guilt of the appellant even remotely. -IT"

¶5On behalf of the State, Ms.KusumDhalla, learned APP for the State, contended that the testimonies of the prosecutionwitnesses established the guilt of the appellant/convict to the hilt of his commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the child victim aged 10 years at the time of sexual assault and that there exists no ground for any leniencywhatsopvet; P, -

¶6Along with the.appeal Crl.M.A. No. 19631M6lanapplication /f4V'' underSection'5-ofthe Liinjtation coridpiiationof30 days' delay«>-^was filed Which \vW^p0.bned vide ordii^.,dated

15.12.2016. Vide Orderdata'^S.iliBMiiminalM.C. 399/18under •' (S"). I ), H fig Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. sse|kiii&ra$|)ensionof sentence of the appellanttill-pendencyof<.|P^'a^^'-#^^|yined.Vide orderdated kkM

7.7.2018, the nominal rolf^j^&ygf^t was called for which indicatesthatit has beenreceivedvide letter4ated30.7.2018from the Superintendent,Central Jaii" Tiltar Vvhich indicates that the appellantas on 30.7.2018had undergonea period of four monthsand 24 days of incarceration with remission of five months 10 days with the unexpired portion of the sentence being five years one month and 26 days if the fine of Rs.5000/- imposed was paid. Apparently, the c said fine imposed vide the impugned order on sentence dated

31.8.2016 has not been paid by the appellant.

¶7A perusal of the Trial Court Record and the testimonies of the 13 prosecution witnesses examined indicate that the date of the incident was the night intervening 5/6.3.2014 though apparently it has been mentioned as 5.3.2014 :initK£FIR'EX.?EW-12/A-l and thus is so

¶1^ ri s 4-^^ mentionedin the Chkrgeofalleg^ipnsJramedon 19^8!S014. 'I %•. '

¶8PW-1.'"' " , . 1,'R', the minorcKu®!^^^iMeil;ity is witfihd^ and who was not administered oatk'butrwh^f^l^ipetence to test% was ascertained by the learned/^TrialSCbrf before, examination on 11 ifti n

30.1.2015indicatesthatonthp^|o^fa^aminationtheminorchild was studying in Standard Alipur Police Station j . u and stated that he was borh%i^miE®^^|fi0r and he had two brothers inclusive of himself and two sisters. On examination of the minor . .'t. - childwho on being asked by tne leamed'"''iVi£lCourt as to whether one should speak the truth or lie, replied that one should speak the truth, andthe learned Trial Court concluded that he was a competent witness but did not administer him oath observing to the effect that the child would not understand the sanctity of the same in view of his tender Mn.' / / age. The testimony of this child witness is to the effect that his father had gone to the native village and thus he was residing with his uncle Vishwadev (PW-2) in a farm where his uncle was also working as a farmer and on 6.3.2014 he had just finished his dinner and was about to sleep and at that time the convictManoj,the appellantherein, came there and took him to the roof a!iid took off^he clothes of the minor child/PW-1)and took,off his own.clofhesand then ihserte his penis into the child'sanus and'aNliaftime'i^^^^ for hel^iahdnobody 'Vf.- listenedto•him and then the^child slepton)lie roof and felts^painand was unableto walkproperlyand thenext'jnominghe got up and went H -w in-'i -; h' W Vit p to the school since he was nof f#lihg^il and one of his uncles Gyan had takenhim to the doc^ takenacup oftea and alsohadtwo-threebiscuits^d^fel^^^^^^adtheninformedGyan aboutthe entireincidentand accordingto thq..childwitness,his uncle Gyan informedthe police.'^Tfel&or^l^statedthat he was well acquaintedwith the accusedand thus identifiedthe accusedas being the ciilpritas he was workingas a securityguardafterhis fatherwent to the nativevillage,. He furtherstatedthat hehimselfwas produced before the Court of the learned MetropolitanMagistratewhere his CRL.A1189/2016 Page5of23 V ^ statementwas recorded and he (PW-1) identifiedhis signatureson the statement Ex.PW-l/A and stated that he could identify the accused if shown to him and he correctly identified the accused in the Court during his testimony on 30.1.2015.

¶9On being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, this witness stated; that "his^statement was recorded in the . y ;; police stationon 6.3.2014 and thatjfj^janmet him ifMera Kalanand thathe, the child^idnot know'wKatAe%oe he stated%athe did not know theiame of the gunmanieriiblpyea at the farm house. He furtherstatedthat he was going,to,,schobl:'thenext morningafter the Ifl 1.1 incident after taking a bath andvnadiMt^t.told about the incident to anyone and had left the01^||^||V^]|®||pd was going to seek medicalaid with another^ciquaini^c^|@|ipalon a cycle and on the way he met Gyan uncle^^^andthat he howeverjihadnot informedabout the incident to Haripaland dM'WinfOTro-tlieincidentto the doctor who attended him and for the first time he had narrated the incident to Gyan uncle and that he was taken for a medical check up to the hospital by police officials.

¶10PW-2 put forth is Vishwadevwho was the uncle of the victim D w 'if-. with whomthe minorchildwas living and he statedthat he had given medical aid to the child and thus he (PW-2) had gone back to his house at Samaipur Badli, Delhi and on being cross-examined on behalf of the accused, i.e., the appellant herein, the witness stated that the victim was not residing with him but was residing at the farm of the accused, i.e., the appellant her,qinarid that the father of the victim had told him to take care of him 'i!, "k

¶11PW-3^examined by the prosecution'|^as HC iRamdhan No. 3172/OD^ho registeredthe.FIRon'receiptofthe rukka.

¶12PW-4 examinedwas Dr'. Mek^kufoar,CMO, Dr.BSAhospital. ;6 '",iL V,'U •• " Rohini, who identified the [signatu|e||:^Point 'A' being that of signaturesof Dr. KaustuvMirM^ft®iM(B5ijdated21.3.2014bearing No. 3589/14 of the child^^^^^^^'TheMLC EX-PW-4/A indicatesthat the child patientwas brought ^or examinationwith the alleged history of sexual assault"on 3;3.2014 as informed by the Investigating Officer and the MLC was prepared on 6.3.2014 at 10:40p.m. vide MLC No. 3210/14 and samples had been collected then. The MLC No.3210/14 Ex.PW-6/B indicates that the male child PW-1 aged 10 years had been brought to the hospital with the alleged CRL. A 1189/2016 •0/ history of unnatural sexual assault at about 10:44 p.m.. It was observed further that proper history was not available, that there was no obvious external injury seen and that the samples, i.e. perianal swab, anal swab and a brown colour underwear of the child had been taken from the victim and handed over to the Investigating Officer.

¶13PW-5 examinedwasHead-Con^fabl^RajinderSinghwhostated S 'i ^ 'S: h .if"-'' thaton thatday i.e.,6.31'20l4,he,,;y^as.^onpatrollmghav|ngbeenposted at PS S.P. of the r.sexually publicperson,"toldhim thatat^Goyal^-afel^^ achildwa|| assaultedand when he reacnejdlheSfeM^iilpndpublic persons present tM and one of them told him thatftheipgrsoM standing near the wall was the same person who hadi sB)d!ll® "PsMted the child. The said person was apprehendedwith^g|^l§gfFthe public and the beat constable and thereafter he was taken to ^the police station and thereafterwas handedovertbtte^hvestifMligOfficerSI Kaptan. He ftirther testified to the effect that SI Kaptan asked him to take the victim to the BSA Hospital for his medical examination and thereafter the Investigating Officer arrested the accused vide memo EX.PW-5/A and thereafter he accompanied the victim to the police station and Y handed over the pulandas to the Investigating Officer which were seized vide memo Ex. PW-5/B and Ex.PW-5/C. This witness on cross examination by the counsel for the accused stated that all the seizure memos were prepared at the Police Station and not at the spot.

¶14PW-6 examined by the prosecution is Dr. Brijesh Patel, CMO, Dr. BSA hospital who testified t8:Jiaving^examineda male aged 40 .i"' ^ H ^ li-R I years vide MLC N%f §209/14,..and^statedthat examined the patient/victim*,;aged 10 ,par,ok^ boy'MdfetMLCN%.32i0/14 and observed 1:hat the victim had two^f'small cut injuries-'^^of size approximately0.5MM X IMM-'x present on interiorpart of 'n ,p {^<1, B w anal area. t^limafe?S®i^iloF^Silsi

¶15PW-9 Dr.MukeshKumar/zjiiMofltlstcMedicine , Dr. BSA hospitalhas testifiedto tH^1e^^M^p^3.2014 a male, namely. Manoj aged 40 years had been broughtto thevhospitalfor the potency test and he had conductedthe¥aMe^and'^estifiedto Ex.PW-9/Abeing the report prepared by him.

¶16Ex.PW-9/Ahidicatesthat it was opined by Dr.MukeshKumar that there was nothingto say that the person examinedwas unable to perform sexual intercourse. CRL.A1189/2016 Page9of23 V-17, 'A', PW-7 the fatherofthe minor child'R' was examinedon

13.5.2015who testifiedto the effectthat his son was aged about 12 years and that he PW-7 was workingas a Guard in the Goyal Farm situatedat Budhpur,Alipur and his son used to reside with him and used to study at a school(identityhavingbeen withheld),statedthat he had gone to his nativevillag^grlitem^iage ofhis daughter,by .r-LJ ^ leaving his son at his room at,.Gqyal Farm as he was having his ^^ examinationsr'anH^hadask^'dl^'^^tififfepiMevwhd':ustdto reside in Budhpij&frtolook afterliilpoli^rH^f^^rstatedthatfeh^d also askedthe accusedManoj,i.l^il&iyilf^t'hereinto take careofhis 11iffII son in his absenceas he waslAkinl^^ guard in his absence,i.e., -ilM absenceofPW-7. He furthei*$\^ig:^%athe,accused,i.e.,the appellant herein,used to sleep at th#%^^|g),^^7'sroom and on 6.3.2014 his son called him i.e. PW-7 and told him that the accused Manoj had committed wrong act wiiKwm aiid^husPW-7 called his cousin telephonicallyand asked him to visit his son and to know his well being and PW-2 thus met his son who narrated the whole incident to him and PW-7 stated that he could not return due to his daughter's marriage and lateron called his cousin Vishwadev who asked him to reach Delhi as soon as possible. This witnessstatedthat on 7.4.2014 hereachedatthe GoyalFarmhouseand cameto knowthathis son was stayingat the Bal SudharGrah and he broughtback his son who told him that the accused Manoj who was in jail had committedwrong with him. No cross-examination of this witness was conducted on behalf of the accused. >, ^ ^1" -if

¶18PW-8 examined was Ct.Dinesh No.34'37/OD^|;PS S.P.Badli who testified'^.to.^theeffect'"he was"'pdsted at PS v,';; • S.P.Badli"gnd was on emergency diity/^Stm8 p.m. to 8im!ni. He ,'XKSI" further stated that he brought the Victifri'.'tothe police station and thereafterthe matter was haMe|il|)'^eE|t%SI Kaptan and SI Kaptan arrested the accused vide his signatures at '"'"Mi' 'kUi - ,1 point'B' andthe personalleiaf|j^i|^^jpTiCsedwas takenvidememo Ex.PW-8/A, bearing his signatures at point 'AJ. He further stated that the accused also made his diisciosife statement vide Ex.PW-8/B which bears his signatures at point A and was taken to the place of occurrence where the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo vide Ex.PW-8/C which bears his signatures at point A.

¶19PW-10 Dr.Priyanka Singh, SR Psychiatry, Dr. BSA Hospital, r \ Rohini, Delhi, who on 7.3.2014 examined the patient Manoj, 40 years vide OPD Card bearing No. 3209/14Ex.PW-lO/Athat the patient, i.e., a reference to the accused,i.e.,the appellant herein being a regular user of alcohols, with alcohol intake present.

¶20PW-11 Madan Mohan, the Chowkidar who used to work at Goyal Farm House, Badshahi^Rbld,piera iCalan, stated that on the date of the incident^e victim ^asvrfsiding with him)PW-11 as the child'sfather'ha^'gone after1li^2ltnonthsof ,jw' vf,. the incideritftheInvestigatirfgPfficer''|||||^me to investigatejhecase %t''' • ^^i9S0 and he (PW-11) had showii theiroqmfwhere the victim 'R' was •|| M il t iilitii'-ff residingand where the wrong!act wai/c'pinmittedwith him, but stated thathePW-11 did notkno#anm®fg%ta case.

¶21PW-12 examined by^th^^eiH^p^aptan, the Investigating Officerofthe Case whQ^supportedthe pros^^^tionversionin toto as set forth in the chargeshM^^^stifit^^'Ex.PW-2/Abeing the statement of uncle of the victim recorded by him, Ex.PW-12/A being the rukka attested by PW-12 on the statement of the uncle of the victim Ex.PW-2/A and testified to EX.PW-5/A being the arrest waiTantof the accused, Ex.PW-8/A being the personal search memo, CRL. A 1189/2016 V-and Ex.PW-8/Bbeing the disclosurestatementof the accused. Inter alia PW-12 testified to Ex.PW-12/B being the site plan of the spot preparedat the instanceof the victimwhereafterhe came backto the police station and he along with HC Rajinder and Ct. Dinesh took the accused at the spot,i.e., Goyal Farm House where he pointed out the place of incident vide pointing ?6ut memp^;Ex.PW-8/C. He further s 1*"^ I if stated that on the same"day the,,statementofthe minor child under Section 164,fGr.P.C. was ^"jPW-12/w^d a copy thereofwafobtainedby the.ihves\igating^0'fficeron applyilififorthe ' ' jW''•^-.'^'^'3 I ''''' same vide applicationEx.PW/12/pf|nd/it|i^^ the custodyof the •f itillvjf victimwas handedoverto his uncle,"fel^his^witnessalso testifiedto the effectthat the accusedwaiip|o^i|G^dSefbrW'theconcernedCourt and •HliV i -'I''' sent to Judicial custodyonwas taken to BSA W hospital for his potency test and after examinationthe report was obtamed fi-om the concerned dbctcifEx.PW-9/A. PW-12 further stated that on 31.3.2014 on his instructions the exhibits of the case were deposited with the FSL by Constable Gulshed Ahmad and the FSL result had been filed on record as Ex.F-1. The investigatingofficer stated that after recording the statements of the witnesses and CRL.A1189/2016 Page13of23 r \ completionofinvestigation,he filedthe chargesheetin the Court.

¶22On beingcross-examined,PW-12 deniedthat he had not taken the signaturesofthevictimon Ex.PW-12/B.

¶23PW-13 examinedwas ParveenKumar Singh,the teacherofthe GovernmentBoys Senior Secondary School, Alipur and testifiedto the effect that as per admissioffliRfgisterthe child, i.e, 'R' was ;n a & t! )' admitted in class Vicori r.4.2014-.:yide.,admissionI^l>jl0449 and that his date ofbirthvwasmenti6rie(t^r^6fS\)2i^|C|pdplaced.a'copyofthe certificatefefespectofth^mlnbf,!g^ld]^l;^ingthe signatur|s,Aofthe PrincipalSh.AshaRam oftlifcs&^^teto6ertificateEx.PW-13/C. 11|

¶24Throughhis statementluhterSeftion313 Cr.P.C. the accused, J, MM i.e., the appellanthereinled against him and statedthatthe fatherofthe^i^^M^ftt victimin custodyofhis cousin and has admitted his medical examination vide MLC No.3209/2014Ex.PW-6/A'St#l)PSl:aSEX.PW-10/Abut has denied that he committedany offence againstthe minor child stating that he had been falsely implicated. He further stated that he was wrongly arrested and that he had made no statement, (i.e., the disclosure statement Ex.PW-8/B). He fiirther stated that no incident CRL.A1189/2016 Page14of23 It V as alleged had happened and that the witnesses were interested witnesses. Though vide statement dated 19.4.2016 he sought to lead evidence in defence, but no such evidence was led by the accused, i.e., the appellant herein. Inter alia the accused had stated that he was innocent and reiterated that the witnesses who testified against him were interested witnesses and thafhe had be,enfalsely implicated ANALYSIS ' ' ^

¶25The age of the There is noOstensible disputethat the schoolrecord;6f^the:hiiri6tchildindicatedthathis date '.i' 4 Vk'^i B I ofbirthwas 26.8.2003and ttelif'v^f|^|"child"withinthe meaning given under the POCSO ||eti^<^flttoi}tfle'^ate

5.3.2014/6.3.2014 of the incident, i.e.. DelavJn resistration ofthe.,FIR 1*^ , j

¶26The incident has taken place ori 5/6-3-14 and the FIR was lodged on 7.3.2014. The father of the minor child was not in Delhi and had gone for his daughter's marriage and the child 'R' could not go for the marriageas he had his examinationsand that he had to apprise his uncle about the same is a factor which has to be considered and Page 15of 23 t cannot be overlooked. The registration of the FIR at 1:15 a.m. on

7.3.2014thus cannotbe termedto be delayedin any mannerespecially as information to the Beat Officer at PP Khera Kalan was given on

6.3.2014 itself TESTIMONIES CONSISTENT IN RELATION TO MA TERIAL PARTICULARS

¶27The testimonies,.oftheiMlribrcHild %l'#|inined as PW-1 and the uncle of the?minorchildve^clminedasvPW2 are'!|fategoricaland cogent and^-^hsistently""^^^S3|i||||^^^^of the witness "SS-' Ex.PWl/A^ir'e.,-thetranslate|[^''^(^io^,^^ppection164Cr.P'.C.,1973 th|eie®l£|effect: statement of the child is to removed my clothes and committed wrong act with me for 2-2 V2 hours. I screamed but no one was there. I wentfrom his^j'pomand in the 'W with me. I do notwantto sayanythingelse.

¶28As rightlyobservedby the learnedTrial Courtvide para 31 of the impugned judgment: "•Testimony of the victim, with relation to the incident is reassuring as he has been consistent throughoutin describingwhat the accused did to CRL.A1189/2016 Page16of23 94) V T ' , ' . •. him. Merely thefact that the victimdid not testify as to whether he called hisfather to inform about the incident does not go to the root of the matter. While appreciating testimonyofvictim, it has to be kept in mind that victim is merely 10 year old boy and description of the act as given by the victim is accurate and is narrated with the understanding of a 10 year old child. Despite the cross-examination of victim no material contradiction came out. No reason has been attributed to him as to why he woiddfalsely ajleg^fhdffacc^usedhas committed sexual assauii%h,kim." " ^

¶29The testimonyof PWl the ^miilor.child, PW21}^rshwadevthe unclewithwhomthe chiM livedwheniiiifai^er was away';;&,omwork, ' i ^ -niv'-nn PW9 Dr. -Mukesh Kumar <wh6 teslifiMltohis report Ex.PW-9/A which indicated that there was'nothinato indicate that the petitioner « m %i '»wii was not potentare all in syn^h^^lMtfelestimonyofPW2 Vishwadev who was informedofthefftpiHerit ofthe minor child as the fatherhadhimselftelephonicallyinformedthe PW2 ofthe incident alsothus corroborates s.^^|>n also set forthby the PW-7, the father of the minor child examined as PW-7.

¶30The testimony of this witness was categorical to the effect that on 6.3.2014 his son called him and told him that the accused/i.e., the appellant herein had committed a wrong act with him whereof he had called his cousin to visit his son who had narrated the entire incident y \ to him, the testimony of PW-7, the father of the minor child corroborates that he had asked Manoj to take care of the minor child when he was away due to his daughter's marriage and that when he was going to .theGoyal Farm House, he learnt that his son was staying in Bal Sudhar Grah and he got his son back and his son told him that Manoj the accused,i.e.,the appplFaltHefeinvhadcommittedwrongact • ' i-./ I- 'y , Sectionn64, 1973 as the learnfeil Link Magistrate observed to child understands the 11 ftif importance and sanctity of |h|| oat|||d^i|ingthe proceedingsunder to him. Section164 Cr.P.C.and depose&Ml56atlials% -ifI

¶32Throughthe availabfl|^^^^|^5ftilnonyofthe child'R' as PWl, his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.Q. and the testimonies of the prosecutionwitnesses^thus^sttbli^h-beyond a reasonabledoubt, that the accused Manoj, i.e., the appellant herein, that on the night intervening 5-3-2014/6-3-2014 had taken the minor child out of the custody of PW-2 and committed an illegal act of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on him by commission of carnal intercourse. CRL. A 1189/2016 There is no inconsistency in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined in relation to material particulars. There is no explanation whatsoever that the accused/appellant herein, has put forth in support of his plea of innocence as to why the minor child would falsely implicate him for the commission of a sexual assault. There is no explanation also|puf;lfdip:hby^the accused as to why Vishwadevthe uncldiofthe victim.woyldfalselyimpli|ate the accused nor there is any explanatipn even^soughtto-beput forth b,y"lheaccused that he was on any inimical terms with theTather of the minorjchild.

¶33The injurieson the interio^rpartoft|eanal areaofthe victimas 5; I'i/: ll'ij )| l| depictedin EX.PW-6/B,the|ls|iL^ child also corroboratethe version of the

¶34In the circumstancesof the case, as rightly held by the learned Trial Court,the guiltofthe^&uMii.e^theappellanthereinqua the commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 377 IPC, 1860 qua the commission of the aggravatedpenetrativesexual assault in terms of Section 9 (p) of the POCSO Act, 2012 in as much as the child was under the care of the T accused, i.e., tiie appellant herein who had committed aggravated penetrativesexual intercourseby havingviolentlycommittedcarnal intercourseagainstthe orderof naturewith a minorchildofthe same sex as the appellantherein is establishedbeyond a reasonabledoubt. The testimonyof the minor child through his testimonyon oath as PW-1 and his statementunderaS^^idtf16^G:r.P.C. are categoricalto the effect that the appellantinsprte,d«hispenis int#T|ie anus of the minor child..flhjheseci^^ms&lffil&toction of^lie appellant herein for Ihe^commission(|^|^i^^^[)enetrativesex^assault by way ofcarnalintercourseijs'to Section6 ofthe POCSO •|l,f ifill I' Act, 2012andthe appealbein|ie#ii||%y meritis herebyrejected.

¶35Duringthe courseofthe^ar^^|^ll appellantsoughtmercy. Howeveras rightlyheld by the learnedTrialQourtvidethe impugned order on sentence for a detefrerit%Mtence-in'terms of Section 6 of the POCSOAct, 2012 wasrequiredinthe circumstancesofthe case, more so, as the appellanthereinwas in capacityof trust and authorityover the child in as much as the father of the minor had left him, i.e., the minor 'R' to his care also apart from leavingthe minor child to the T" care of PW-2 and it, is establishedthat the appellanthereinhad taken the child on the terrace and committedaggravatedpenetrativesexual assault by way of carnal intercoursewith him and that too with a minor aged 10 years.

¶36In the circumstances there is no ground for leniency and apart from the same, it is essentialjy|p|serv0dthafeSection6 of the POCSO prescribesaminimumtermofrigpr^ji^^prisoWe^ffpr^atermwhich is notto be lessihan10 yfe^J^E'^l^i^riiS^exteiidtolinlprisonment for life and'itlik the accused,•'i.e.,'^?the'aDpellant herein is alsCliable to pay afine and thus the sentencKimpbsed^yidethe impugnedjudgment of the rigorous imprisonment for a p;eriodof 10 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in defaultofone to||implejinjprisonment ofone month for offenceuiider-?Gp§<^|a'ct',2012 is upheld,and the appeal is dismissed. . .0-. • REFORMATimWKdiSRAMME

¶37In terms of the verdict of Supreme Court in Phul Singh Vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 506/1979 decided on

10.09.1979 ^d directions laid down by;us in Sanjay vs. State 2017 III AD (Delhi) 241, dated 20.02.2017 so that the ''carceral period w reforms the convicf it is essential that the following directives detailed hereunder are given to the sentence of imprisonment.

¶38The concerned Superintendentat the Tihar Jail, New Delhi wherethe appellantshallbe incarceratedforthe remainderof the term of imprisonmentas hereinabovedirectedshallconsideran appropriate programmeforthe appellant.pnBittihg^aiffeasible: • HPiappropriate^^y^^fectionalcdti|ses through m-e^itational'therlpyl; "Vs:., • educational&ppppKtiiniw, vocational#^raining '-and. .kill diMfiSlUmme to a livelihoodoptio^|an^^^iq^|u^^ status; • shaping release rehabilitation programmefor|ti||;|p|ej[l||itwell in advance before the dateofhis/riileasetQ^ma|;e.himself-dependent, • ensurin^J?|ti§^r|^|r^^^ 22 clause 22.22

(II) Model Prisji^^^!p^^pbl6,protection of the appellant from getting associated with anti - social groups, agencies of moral hazards (like gambling dens, drinfeg^placesi^^ndf#brothels)and with demoralised and^depnved persons; • adequate counselling being provided to the appellant to be sensitized to understand why he is in prison; • conducting of Psychometric tests to measure the reformation taking place; and • that the appellant may be allowed to keep t contact with his family members as per the Jail rules and in accordance with the Model Prison Manual.

¶39Furthermore, it is directed that a Bi-annual report is submitted by the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi to this Court till the date of release, of the measures being adopted for reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant.

¶40Copy ofthis|udgmentbe also senrfoliBleDirectorGeneral, Prisons,Del|iiand to the Secretary,Law, Justiceand Legislative Affairs, GNCTD, Delhi ,to/,ensure,incompliance of thi^S"above •• f * /\<v *fc directions.The copy ofthis judgmenttie suppliedto the appellant and be sent to the Superintendent Jail^ Tihar.

¶41The record of the trial.'G6urt;be"|:ebmedforthwith. ANU MALHOTRA, J SEPTEMBER12*^,HftfP Page23of23 y

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judsment reserved on : Ausust, 2018 Date ofdecision :12.09.2018 MANOJ Appellant Through Mr.Kanhaiya Singhal, Adv. ,^ei^us THE STATEGOVT. OF NCT OF BELHI .Ckespondent for the DhShnendra CORAM: VflirillJ HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANll M^LHOTRA I ANU MALHOTRA :7- r. ^ ,r /?> 1. The present Criminal Appeal No. 1189/2016 filed by the appellant^convictassailst^e impti'gnBd dated27.8.2016 and