* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.A.No.296/1999
# VIJENDER SINGH ..... Appellant
! Through: Mr. Rakesh Malviya and
Mr. Saurab Sahi, Advs.
versus
$ THE STATE ..... Respondent
^ Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP
* CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes
: V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 21 st May, 1999 and Order on Sentence dated 22nd May, 1999 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 506 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or to undergo SI for two months in default.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 3rd January, 1997, at about 5.00 pm when the prosecutrix went to tube well to take water, the appellant and his co-accused Devender and Surender were already standing there. When the CRL.A. No.296/1999 Page 1 of 4 prosecutrix was taking water, Devender came from behind, gagged her mouth and then all the three took her towards bushes. She was then raped by Devender and Surender, co- accused of the appellant. The allegation against the appellant was that he had threatened to kill the prosecutrix with a knife in case she raised an alarm.
3. The prosecutrix came in the witness box and supported the case as set out in the FIR. She stated that when she was taking water, accused Surender gagged her mouth with his hand whereas accused Devender took her towards kikar trees. She was raped firstly by Surender and then by Devender. When she was raped by Surender, Devender had gagged her mouth with his hand whereas, when she was raped by Devender, it was Surender who had kept her mouth gagged with his hand.
As regards the appellant, she stated that he had threatened her with knife in case she raised hue or cry. During cross-examination, she admitted that none of the accused was armed and all of them were empty handed.
4. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the allegations against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. CRL.A. No.296/1999 Page 2 of 4
5. I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix. There was no enmity or ill-will between her and the appellant. Therefore, she had no reason to depose falsely against him and implicate him in a false case. Her testimony proves that the appellant had threatened to kill her though he was not armed at that time.
6. Both the co-accused of the appellant being juvenile, their sentence has already been quashed by this Court in Crl.Appeal No.292 of 1999 decided on September 6, 2000 and Crl.Appeal No.280 of 1999 decided on May 1, 2009. The learned counsel for the appellant states that considering the evidence which was produced against the appellant during trial, he does not press the appeal on merits of the conviction, but seeks benefit of probation for the appellant who has spent more than 6 months in judicial custody in this case. A perusal of the bail order dated 22nd November, 1999 passed in this case would show that the appellant, who was sent to judicial custody on 22nd May, 1999, was granted bail after six months. Some days were spent by appellant in jail when he was initially arrested.
7. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, including that the appellant was not armed when he threatened the prosecutrix, coupled with the fact that he has CRL.A. No.296/1999 Page 3 of 4 already spent more than six months in judicial custody, the appellant is granted benefit of probation and it is directed that he be released on furnishing a bond of peace and good conduct in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount for a period of two years, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. During the period of bond, he shall maintain peace and good conduct and shall refrain himself from committing any crime. He shall appear as and when directed to receive the sentence awarded to him. The appellant shall also pay Rs.20,000/-, as compensation, to the prosecutrix by way of a pay order in her name. The pay order alongwith bond of peace and good conduct will be submitted before the Trial Court within two weeks from today. In default of furnishing the bond and/or paying the compensation, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and will also pay the fine of Rs.2,000/- or undergo simple imprisonment for two months in default.
The appeal stands disposed of.
One copy of this order be sent to Trial Court for information.
(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE NOVEMBER 26, 2009 bg CRL.A. No.296/1999 Page 4 of 4