Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 5311 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              RESERVED ON : 6th November, 2013
                              DECIDED ON : 19th November, 2013

+      CRL.A. 379/2002

       GULFAM @ GHODA SHAH                    ..... Appellant
                   Through : Ms.Seema Gupta, Advocate with
                             Mr.Ankit Gupta, Advocate.

                         versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                         ..... Respondent
                     Through :      Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.


        CORAM:
        MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant (Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah) impugns a judgment

dated 21.03.2002 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case

No.3/2001 arising out of FIR No.138/2000 registered at Police Station

Chandni Mahal holding him guilty for the offences under Sections

367/377/506/342/34 IPC. By an order dated 01.04.2002, he was awarded

Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine `1,000/- under Section

367 IIPC; five years with fine with fine `5000/- under Section 377 IPC;

one year with fine `500/- under Section 342 IPC and two years with fine

`1,000/- under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were to operate

concurrently.

2. Allegations against the appellant and his companion Imran

were that on the night intervening 24/25-08-2000, they in furtherance of

common intention abducted Mohd. Siraj at around 12.00 night; committed

sodomy; criminally intimidated and wrongfully confined him. The victim

reported the incident to the police without delay and after recording his

statement (Ex.PW-1/A) First Information Report was lodged in the

morning hours on 25.08.2000. The victim was medically examined. Both

Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah and Imran were arrested. Pursuant to their

disclosure statements, knives used in the crime were recovered.

Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation,

a charge-sheet was submitted against both the assailants and they were

duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined seven

witnesses. The defence examined R.K.Mehrotra, working as Manager

with Delite Cinema as DW-1. On appreciating the evidence and after

considering the submissions of the parties, the Trial Court by the

impugned judgment held both of them guilty for the offences mentioned

previously. It is relevant to note that Imran challenged the impugned

judgment in Crl.A.No.374/2002 which was disposed of by this Court on

24.04.2009. Imran was able to convince that on the day of incident he

was juvenile and had not completed the age of 18 years. While

maintaining conviction for the above mentioned offences, substantive

sentence was quashed on that score.

3. During arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions, stated

at Bar that the appellant Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah has opted not to challenge

the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. She prayed to release him

for the period already undergone by him in custody which is about three

years.

4. I have considered the submissions. Since the appellant has

given up challenge to the findings for the above mentioned offences

recorded by the Trial Court and the prosecution had produced

overwhelming evidence of the complainant (as PW-1) coupled with

medical evidence, the findings on conviction are affirmed/confirmed. The

victim was minor aged 16 years on the day of occurrence. The assailants

committed sodomy on his person using knives and putting him in fear.

They abducted him to a secluded place voluntarily and had carnal

intercourse against the order of nature without his consent and against his

wishes. The assailants were armed with deadly weapons and were under

the influence of liquor that time at odd hours. The act was pre-planned

and deliberate with an intention to satisfy lust. The assailants took turns

to ravish the child and caused injuries on his body. Sexual violence apart

from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to

privacy and sanctity of a victim. It offends his/her self-esteem and

dignity- it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a

helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. Thus,

leniency in matters involving sexual offences is undesirable and against

public interest. The appellant's crime is the result of a perverse mind.

Nominal roll dated 02.08.2010 reveals that the appellant Gulfam @

Ghoda Shah was involved in another FIR No.370/1999 under Section

377/506 IPC registered at Police Station Darya Ganj. Outcome of the said

criminal case is unclear. The appellant indulged in similar offence

subsequently in the present case vide FIR No.138/2000 registered at

Police Station Chandni Mohalla. Mohd. Gulfam was aged about 21 years

on the day of incident and had associated Imran, a minor, in committing

the crime. Considering these facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient

ground to modify the sentence order. The appeal is unmerited. The

conviction and sentence of the appellant are maintained and the appeal is

dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial court on

26.11.2013 to serve the remaining period of sentence. The Registry shall

transmit the Trial Court records forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE November 19, 2013 sa