Vijender Singh vs The State
2009 Latest Caselaw 4852 Del

*    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

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.

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

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