Ram Nath Mandal vs Union Of India
1994 Latest Caselaw 458 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th January, 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 69/90.

(2) Before the Court of Sessions, there were two accused Ram Nath Mandal and Satya Narain Sharma. The accused Satya Narain Sharma was acquitted and accused Ram Nath Mandal was convicted under Section 363 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to three years of R.I. and fine of Rs.500.00 in default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo further imprisonment of two months. The accused was further convicted under Section 376 and was given seven years R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000.00 in default of payment, the accused was directed to undergo further imprisonment of six months. The Court directed that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. This appeal has been preferred by Rain Nath Mandal against his conviction by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.

(3) The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows: "On 5th December, 1989 at about 6:00 p.m. Algugiri, father of the Victim Meena lodged a report at Police Station Samaipur Badli that his minor daughter aged about 12 years had gone at 9:00 a.m. to her school on 4th December, 1989 and did not return home. He mentioned in his statement that Been a had illicit relations with Ram Nath Mandal. It was suspected that Meena and the neighbour Been a had been abducted. The mother of the victim Meena, Mala Devi (Public Witness 3) had stated, that on enquiry it was learnt that Been a came to school and took Meena along with her. Meena was taken away from the school at the behest of accused Ram Nath Mandal. On 17th December, 1989, Mujjaffar Nagar police recovered Meena, Been a and Ram Nath Mandal and produced them at police station Samaipur Badli on 19th December, 1989".

(4) Statements of Meena and Been a were recorded by the police under Section 161 and also under* section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code . After competition of investigation, charge sheet under section 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code was filed against Ram Nath Mandal

(5) Public Witness I Meena had stated that on 4th December, 1989 she was living with her parents in their jhuggi and was studying in 5th standard. At about 9:00 a.m. when she was in her school, Been a came and told that her mother had wanted her. Been a also told her that her father had met with an accident at the place, where her brother was working. Been a took her to the bus stand, in a rickshaw and at the bus stand Ram Nath Mandal accused was present. He also boarded the rickshaw. Accused Ram Nath Mandal and Been a took Meena away to the Vijay Cinema. In her statement she had further stated that they took her to a room of one Rajender. The other accused Satya Narain Sharma was also present there. She further stated in her statement that Ram Nath Mandal raped her and Been a for two days. Under threat Ram Nath Mandal took both of them to a village where he kept them in a room of another Rajinder. There also he raped her as well as Been a. There someone came and told Ram Nath Mandal that the police was searching for him and he should take these girls to Bihar. Immediately thereafter the accused Ram Nath Mandal had taken both of them by train to a village of his sister in Distt. Mujaffarpur, Bihar. He threatened her not to raise an alarm otherwise he would strangulate her. Next day, the sister of accused Ram Nath Mandal asked him' to take away the girls from her house and the accused took them to another village and kept them in the house of a relative. There she started crying loudly and her cries were heard by a few women of the locality and they informed the Mukhia of the village. The accused was taken to the house of the mukhia and the police recovered them. In the meantime Been a had run away from that house.

(6) The police had seized Meena's salwar and underwear. She was medically examined and she had also given her statement before the Magistrate. She had further stated that she was raped in the presence of Been a. She also stated that Been a had sexual intercourse with Ram Nath Mandal with her consent. Prosecu- tion has also examined Algugiri (Public Witness 2) and Smt. Mala Devi W/o Algugiri(PW3) has also been examined. Smt. Been a Public Witness 4 was also examined. Public Witness 5 Dr. Ajay Mittal and other constables Dr. C.P. Sharma Public Witness 10 had examined all the witnesses and have supported prosecution version fully.

(7) The medical examination of Meena also supports the prosecution version. Admittedly Meena was a minor girl. She clearly stated in her statement that she was raped several times. Her testimony finds complete support from the testimony of her mother, father and the testimony of Dr. Ajay Mittal, Public Witness 5.

(8) The prosecution version is also fully corroborated by the medical evidence also. Clothes of prosecutrix Meena were sent for medical examination at Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Four dirty clothes exhibit No. I one dirty torn underwear, exhibit 2(a) one dirty underwear having whitish stains exhibit 2(b) one dirty printed salwar having whitish stains and exhibit 3(a) one dirty printed saree. In the report of the Cfsl, it is clearly mentioned that seamans stains were detected on these clothes. The prosecution had been able to prove the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. The learned Asj has found accused Ram Nath Mandal guilty under section 363 and 376 IPC.

(9) I have carefully gone through the judgment of the Asj and perused the entire relevant record of this case and heard amices curiae turn the petitioner and counsel for the State at length. Mr. Kalia, appearing for the accused appellant submitted that the accused had already served out more than four years of imprisonment, therefore. Court should take lenient view of the matter.

(10) Looking to the gravity of the offence, and the manner in which it has been committed, it would not be in the interest of justice to take any lenient view of the matter. Accused like the appellant have made a serious attempt to demolish the entire social fabric 'of the society. It would be impossible to maintain orderly society if such accused are not dealt with firmly. Therefore, no leniency or indulgence ought to be granted when an accused has committed such offences.

(11) I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the instant case. Consequently, the appeal filed by the accused is dismissed.

(12) Mr. Mukesh Kalia was appointed amices curiae. This Court would like to place on record able assistance provided by Mr. Kalia in arguing this appeal.