Delhi High Court
Seema vs The State on 22 March, 2016
$~21 to 24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 22nd MARCH, 2016
+ CRL.A. 650/2003
SEEMA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP.
+ CRL.A. 655/2003
MADHU .... Appellant
Through : Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP.
+ CRL.A. 382/2004 & Crl. M (B) Nos. 1220/2005, 1412/2005 &
1517/2005
SEEMA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP.
AND
Crl.A.650/2003 & connected appeals Page 1 of 9
+ CRL.A. 505/2004
MADHU ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. S. Sarkar, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. Seema and Madhu (the appellants) were arrested in case FIR
No.282/2001 under Sections 363/368/376/342/323/109/34 IPC and
Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 ITP Act PS Kamla Market. Some minor girls
recovered from Kothas at G.B.Road in a police raid were lodged in
Nirmal Chhaya. They wanted to make statements U/S 13 JJ Act on
07.07.2001. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of victim
'X'(changed name) and lodged FIR. Statements of the witnesses
conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the appellants. The
prosecution examined twenty witnesses to establish its case. In 313
Cr.P.C. statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the
crime and pleaded false implication. No evidence in defence was led.
After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation
of the evidence, the Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated
11.08.2003 in Sessions Case No.143/2001 convicted the appellants -
Seema and Madhu for committing offences under Sections 373/368 read
with Section 366 IPC. By an order dated 19.08.2003, Seema was
sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine `5,000/- under Section
368 read with Section 366 IPC and RI for eight years with fine `5,000/-
under Section 373 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
Madhu was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine `5,000/-
under Section 368 read with Section 366 IPC. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied, Crl.A.650/2003 and Crl.A.655/2003 have been preferred by
them.
2. Seema and Madhu were also arrested by the police of PS
Kamla Market in case FIR No.258/2001 for committing offences under
Sections 363/368/372/373/376/342/323/506/109/34 IPC and Sections 3, 4,
5 & 6 ITP Act. On 06.07.2001, a raid was conducted at Kotha No.68, 2nd
floor, G.B.Road, Delhi at around 03.30 p.m. Two girls 'Y' (changed
name) and 'Z' (changed name) were recovered from there. After
recording Y's statement, the Investigating Officer lodged First
Information Report. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts
were recorded. Geeta and Ramprashad were also apprehended and
arrested. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against all of them in the Court. During trial, Ramprashad and Geeta
absconded and were declared Proclaimed Offenders. The prosecution
examined various witnesses to establish its case. In 313 Cr.P.C.
statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and
claimed false implication. Finally, the trial resulted in their conviction.
By the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2004 in Sessions Case No.26/01,
they were convicted under Sections 373/342/506/120B IPC and were
acquitted of the offence under Sections 323 IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 5
& 6 ITP Act. By an order dated 14.05.2004, they were sentenced to
undergo RI for ten years with fine `10,000/- each under Section 373 IPC,
RI for one year with fine `500/- each under Section 342 IPC and RI for
one year with fine `500/- each under Section 506 IPC. The substantive
sentences were to operate concurrently. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied,
Crl.A.382/2004 and Crl.A.505/2004 have been preferred. It is pertinent to
note that State did not challenge their acquittal in certain offences
mentioned previously.
3. During the course of arguments in the above appeals, learned
counsel for the appellants, on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellants
have opted not to challenge their conviction on merits. Prayer has been
made to modify the Sentence Order and to release them for the period
already undergone by them. Learned APP has no objection to consider the
mitigating circumstances to take lenient view.
4. Since the appellants have voluntarily opted to accept the
findings of the Trial Court on conviction in both the FIR Nos.282/2001
and 258/2001 in the presence of overwhelming evidence, their convictions
are affirmed.
5. Vide order dated 08.08.2006 in Crl.A.382/2004, this Court,
while granting benefit under Section 427 Cr.P.C. to the appellant Seema,
directed that the sentence awarded to her in case vide FIR No.258/2001
shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to her in case FIR
No.282/2001 of PS Kamla Market.
6. Vide order dated 27.07.2006 in Crl.A.505/2004 benefit under
Section 427 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant Madhu and it was
directed that sentences in both the FIR Nos.282/2001 and 258/2001 PS
Kamla Market shall run concurrently.
7. Order dated 27.07.2006 in Crl.A.505/2004 reflects that the
appellant Madhu has already suffered imprisonment of five years and ten
months including remissions out of total imprisonment of ten years
awarded to her in that case. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of the
appellant Madhu was suspended on her furnishing bail bonds in the sum
of `20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court. She was further directed not to visit the Red Light area in
G.B.Road. She was further directed to appear before the SHO, Police
Station Kamla Market in the first week of every month and to furnish her
latest residential address.
8. Vide order dated 22.08.2006 in Crl.A.382/2004 the
substantive sentence of the appellant Seema was suspended on her
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of `20,000/- with two sureties in the like
amount. She was also directed not to visit the Red Light area in G.B.Road
and to report to SHO, Police Station Kamla Market in the first week of
every month and to furnish her latest residential address. It was noticed
that she had already suffered imprisonment for about five years including
remissions out of total imprisonment for ten years.
9. Sentence order dated 19.08.2003 in Sessions Case No.143/01
arising out of FIR No.282/01 PS Kamla Market records that Seema was
aged around 55 years. Both her ovaries were not functioning and she was
undergoing treatment. It further records that the appellant Seema had a
son aged around 18 years. Appeal file records that interim bail was
granted to Seema on various occasions to allow her to get treatment on
various occasions. She had undergone surgery also. After her suspension
of sentence, nothing has emerged on record if her involvement in any
other similar case was found / noticed. The appellant has suffered ordeal /
agony of trial / appeal for about more than 15 years. She is not a previous
convict. No useful purpose will be served to send her in custody to serve
out the remaining period of substantive sentence. Considering all the
mitigating circumstances and the appellant's age, the period already
undergone by her in both the cases shall be taken as her substantive
sentence.
10. Regarding appellant Madhu, Sentence Order dated
19.08.2003 records that she was aged around 37 years. She had a
daughter aged around 8 years who was in the custody of her friend Sunita
to whom she had come to visit from Nepal. It further records that a query
was made from convict Madhu if she was interested to leave her daughter
with any relative or NGO or some other institution run by the Department
of Social Welfare, Delhi Administration. She informed that she would not
like to handover the custody of her daughter to anyone else as she was
being looked after nicely by her friend. After her suspension of sentence,
nothing has emerged if the appellant Madhu indulged in any such activity
or was involved in any such criminal case. She is not a previous convict
and is to look after her daughter. She has also suffered ordeal / agony of
trial / appeal for around 15 years.
11. Initially, both Seema and Madhu were victims of
circumstances and were forced to indulge in prostitution.
12. Considering the mitigating circumstances, I am of the view
that no useful purpose will be served to direct the appellant Seema to
undergo the remaining period of substantive sentence in custody.
Accordingly, substantive sentence undergone by her in both the cases
shall be treated as substantive sentence.
13. Of course, the appellants shall deposit the fine imposed by
the Trial Court in the impugned orders if remained unpaid so far. In
addition, they shall deposit `50,000/- each within fifteen days in the trial
court to be paid to the victims. ` 25,000/- each shall be given as
compensation to victims, 'Y' and 'Z', in case FIR
No.258/2001 and `50,000/- shall be paid to victims 'R', 'X' and
'S' in equal proportions in case FIR No.282/2001. Trial Court shall
disburse this amount to the victims after due notice. If the victims or their
legal heirs are untraceable, the amount shall be deposited with Delhi State
Legal Services Authority to be utilized for the welfare of any such
victim(s).
14. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications also stand disposed of.
15. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
order in sealed cover as it contains names of victims whose identity is not
to be disclosed. Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MARCH 22, 2016 / tr
