Satish vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 4410 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                DECIDED ON : 25th September, 2013

+                               CRL.A.372/2000
       SATISH                                            .... Appellant
                          Through : Mr.Anurag Jain, Advocate.


                                 VERSUS


       STATE                                             ..... Respondent
                          Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated

11.02.2000 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case

No.5/1998 arising out of FIR No.446/1997 registered at Police Station

Narela by which Satish (the appellant) was held guilty for committing

offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. By an order dated 21.02.2000,

he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 18.10.1997 at

about 03.40 P.M. he committed unnatural intercourse with Arun Kumar

aged four years on the back side of Govt. Sr.Secondary Model School,

Bawana near Canal Bhawana. Police machinery was set in motion when

DD No. 14 (Ex.PW6/A) was recorded at Police Post Bawana on getting

information about the incident. The Investigating Officer lodged First

Information Report after recording complainant-Rajesh's statement

(Ex.PW3/A). The victim was medically examined. Statements of the

witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused was

arrested. After completion of investigation, the accused was charged for

committing offence under Section 367/377 IPC. The prosecution

examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. In his 313 statement, the

appellant pleaded false implication. By the impugned judgment, the

appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 367 IPC.

3. During the course of arguments appellant's counsel, on

instructions from the appellant (present in court), stated at Bar that Satish

has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court under Section

377 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. He, however, prayed to take lenient

view and to release the accused for the period already spent by him in

custody. The appellant offered to pay compensation to the victim.

4. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction

voluntarily under Section 377 IPC and there is overwhelming evidence on

record in the statement of PW-3 (Rajesh) and PW-5 (Smt.Geeta) coupled

with medical evidence, conviction under Section 377 stands affirmed.

The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. Nominal roll

dated 04.09.2002 reveals that he has already undergone 03 years, 01

month and 27 days incarceration as on 31.08.2002. He also earned

remission for eight months. The substantive sentence was suspended vide

order dated 26.11.2002. Nominal roll further reveals that the appellant

has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. His

overall jail conduct is satisfactory. The appellant was aged about 18 years

on the date of incident. At the time of moving application for suspension

of sentence (Crl.M.A.No.2109/2002) he claimed his date of birth as 25th

October, 1979 and produced photocopy (Annexure A) of School Leaving

Certificate. However, he did not claim juvenility and did not ask to

conduct inquiry regarding his exact date of birth. He also did not place on

record the date reflected in the school first attended by him. The fact

remains that the appellant was aged about 18 years at the time of incident.

He has offered to pay reasonable compensation to the victim. Though the

offence committed is grievous and reflects sexual perversity, taking into

consideration all these mitigating circumstances, the sentence order

requires modification. The appellant has suffered agony of trial/appeal for

about 16 years. After his release on bail, no involvement in similar

activity has surfaced. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no

objection to take a lenient view and to modify the sentence order.

Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence

order is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo the period

already spent by him in this case which is more than four years. The

appellant shall pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the victim and for this

purpose, he shall deposit a demand draft in the name of victim-Arun

Kumar with the Trial Court within fifteen days. The Trial Court shall

issue notice to the victim for release of compensation.

5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial

Court record be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE September 25, 2013 sa