Pappu Singh @ Raju vs State

$~15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: August 01, 2014

+                         CRL.A. 1189/2013

      PAPPU SINGH @ RAJU                                ..... Appellant
               Represented by:         Mr.R.S.Mishra, Advocate

                                       versus

      STATE                                              ..... Respondent
                     Represented by:   Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP
                                       W/SI Saroj Bala, PS Chhawla

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.B.No.369/2014 Learned counsel for the appellant states that if the appeal could be heard today itself, the application seeking suspension of sentence pending hearing of the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn.

Crl.M.B.No.369/2014 is accordingly dismissed. Crl.A.No.1189/2013

1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, the only argument worthy of being noted is that according to the appellant the sentence to undergo imprisonment for life is harsh.

2. Before dealing with the issue of sentence we note that appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The prosecutrix was a minor and was a student of Class VII, Government Girls School, Crl.A.No.1189/2013 Page 1 of 3 Goyla Khurd, New Delhi. The appellant used to ferry children to school in his tempo. The first student to board the tempo was the prosecutrix. Other children used to board the tempo a little distance away from the spot where the prosecutrix used to board the tempo. As deposed to by the prosecutrix she was raped firstly on April 10, 2012 when the appellant took her to the compound of his house in the morning after her mother had left her at appellant's house to proceed to the school. Appellant threatened to kill her if she told said fact to anyone. The appellant continued to rape her over the next 20-25 days.

3. The prosecutrix hid her miseries from her parents. But truth surfaced when prosecutrix started feeling sick. Her mother Manju Devi PW-2 asked her about her periods. Prosecutrix told her mother that her last menstruation was two months back. The prosecutrix was taken by the mother to Samta Hospital where it was revealed that the prosecutrix was pregnant. FIR was got registered against the appellant. The prosecutrix was taken to RTRM Hospital Jafarpur where her pregnancy was terminated. Foetus was sent for DNA analysis along with the blood sample of the appellant. DNA Report Ex.PA conclusively establishes that the appellant was the biological father of the foetus.

4. The prosecutrix has withstood the cross examination.

5. Sher Singh PW-11 Incharge MC. Primary School, Kutub Vihar has proved that the prosecutrix was born on November 20, 1996. Thus, as of April 10, 2012 she would be a minor.

6. Having satisfied ourselves that the appellant has been convicted for the offence of rape on the basis of cogent evidence, we proceed to consider the sentence.

7. The mitigating circumstance projected is that the appellant is married and has a wife and two children to support. The aggravating fact would be that the appellant repeatedly made the minor prosecutrix the object of his lust. He repeatedly raped her over 20-25 days and made her pregnant. Being a married person he would have known that repeated sex with the prosecutrix would make her pregnant which would have an adverse impact on the physical health of the prosecutrix; not to belittle the mental trauma caused by the appellant on the prosecutrix who was made to yield herself to the lust of the appellant under fear of being killed.

8. We do not find the sentence disproportionate or harsh.

9. The appeal is dismissed.

10. TCR be returned.

11. Two copies of the present decision be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar. One to be supplied to the appellant and the other for the jail record.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 01, 2014 mamta Crl.A.No.1189/2013 Page 3 of 3