Delhi High Court
Dilshad Ahmed vs State on 20 February, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 20, 2015
+ CRL.A.227/2004
DILSHAD AHMED
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.M.Shamikh, Advocate.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated
30.01.2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case
No.341/97 arising out of FIR No.648/96 under Section 366A/376 IPC
registered at Police Station Janak Puri by which the appellant-Dilshad
Ahmed was held guilty for committing offence under Section 354 IPC.
By an order dated 17.02.2004, he was sentenced to undergo RI for one
year with fine `5,000/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant as set up in the charge-sheet
were that on 26.07.1996 at about 04:00 p.m. outside jhuggis in a vacant
place in Pappan Kalan, he committed rape upon 'X' (assumed name),
aged about 9 years. Statements of witnesses conversant with facts were
recorded during investigation. The prosecutrix was medically examined;
she recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement. After completion of investigation, a
charge-sheet was filed under Section 366A/376 IPC. The appellant was,
however, charged only under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined
nine witnesses to establish the appellant's guilt. In 313 statement, the
appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication.
The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. It is relevant to note that
the State did not challenge the acquittal under Section 376 read with
Section 511 IPC.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on
instructions stated that the appellant has opted to give up challenge to the
findings on conviction recorded by the Trial Court. He, however, prayed
to take lenient view as the appellant has remained in custody for about six
months and is not a previous convict. To this, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has no objection.
4. Since the appellant has accepted the findings of the Trial
Court on conviction voluntarily and there is ample evidence in the form of
statement of the prosecutrix, conviction under Section 354 IPC is
affirmed.
5. The appellant was tried for the offence punishable under
Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. However, he was found guilty for
committing offence under Section 354 IPC. He remained in custody for
about six months in the incident of the year 1996 and has suffered the
agony of trial/appeal for about 18 years. The fine is stated to have been
deposited. Sentence order records that the appellant was not involved in
any other criminal case; is not a previous convict; was aged about 21
years at the time of occurrence. At present, he has five children and the
youngest one is five years old. His wife has expired and there is none else
to take care of the children. When asked to pay some compensation to
victim, he volunteered to pay a reasonable amount. Considering these
circumstances, no useful purpose will be served to send the appellant in
custody particularly when his involvement in any other case after
suspension of sentence in 2004 has surfaced.
6. In the light of the above discussion, the period already
undergone by the appellant in this case is taken as his substantive sentence
under Section 354 IPC. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order
are left undisturbed. The appellant shall, however, pay `20,000/- as
compensation to the victim and shall deposit it in the Trial Court within
two weeks to be given to the victim after due notice.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court
record (if any) along with copy of this order be sent back forthwith. A
copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail for intimation.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 20, 2015
sa
