Harsh @ Bahabar Raza vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 3771 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              Date of Decision: 19th May, 2016

+       CRL.REV.P. 714/2015 & Crl. M.B. No. 8075/2015
        HARSH @ BAHABAR RAZA                         ..... Petitioner
                       Through     Mr. Sudhir Nagar and Mr. Parashant
                                   Khatana, Advocates

                           Versus

        STATE                                             ..... Respondent
                           Through      Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP along with
                                        SI Amit Tyagi, PS Ranjit Nagar,
                                        Delhi.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

                           JUDGMENT

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. Challenge in this Revision Petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. is to the judgment dated 27th August, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Crl.Appeal No.45/2014 arising out of FIR 134/2011 registered with Police Station Ranjeet Nagar u/s 420/508/354 IPC whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against conviction was dismissed.

2. Succinctly stated, the background facts are as under:-

On 21st June, 2011, the complainant „A‟ lodged a complaint Ex.PW2/A stating, inter alia, that there was marital discord with her husband due to his drinking and eating habits. To find solution to her problems, on seeing an advertisement in the newspaper, she made a call at

phone No. 9958124384 which was picked up by the petitioner. He assured to resolve her problem by conducting pooja. On 6th June, 2011, she reached Maharaja Complex. The petitioner took Rs.2700/- from her to purchase pooja articles and asked her to come next day at about 12 noon. On 7th June, 2011, while conducting pooja, the petitioner bursted a small matki and told her that her husband was having an affair. To end his affair, she will have to get a pooja conducted in the cremation ground and sacrifice two goats for which total expenditure will be Rs.27000/-. He further told her that in case, she does not get the pooja performed, her life and the life of her husband and children would be in danger. Being scared, she gave Rs.8,000/- on 9th June, 2011 and Rs.9,000/- on 11th June,2011. He assured her that pooja will start having its effect within three days. Since the pooja was ineffective, she called the petitioner on 20th June, 2011. He called her at about 11:45 AM on her mobile and asked her to come to Maharaja Complex. She reached there at about 2:30 pm, whereafter the convict took her inside a room and bolted the door from inside. He told her that he will establish physical relation with her and use the discharge to make „tabiz‟. The discharge would have to be consumed by her husband and then her husband would become her slave. He also informed that this pooja was called "vashikaran pooja". Thereafter, he removed his clothes and held her hand. She became nervous and managed to flee from the room. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 354/509/420/506 IPC was filed.

3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all, examined six witnesses. The statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the case of prosecution. According to him, he was falsely

implicated in this case due to business rivalry. Moreover, he went for hair cut in a Saloon called Smart Look Hair Saloon where some fight was already going on between the saloon owner and one of the customers. When he intervened, said customer started fighting with him and slapped on his face. Thereafter 2-3 days later, he was falsely implicated in this case.

4. Vide judgment dated 4th December, 2012, the petitioner was convicted for offence u/s 420/508/354 IPC, however, he was acquitted of the offence u/s 506/509 IPC. Vide order dated 4th January, 2013, he was sentenced as under:-

(i) For offence u/s 420 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo SI for two months.

(ii) for offence u/s 354 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for two years.

(iii) for offence u/s 508 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo SI for one year.

All the sentences were to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was given.

5. Out of fine realized, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 27th August, 2015 and the judgment of conviction and sentence were reaffirmed.

7. Feeling dissatisfied, present revision petition has been filed by the appellant.

8. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences and rightly so as prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused. He also does not challenge the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court for offence u/s 354 and 508 IPC, however, as regards the sentence awarded u/s 420 IPC, counsel submits that a liberal view be taken as the petitioner is a young man of about 29 years. At the time of commission of crime, he was aged about 25 years. He is married and has the responsibility to maintain three minor children. He is the only bread earner of the family. Counsel further submits that he is ready to pay more compensation to the complainant but the substantive sentence awarded u/s 420 IPC be reduced.

9. Learned APP for State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner took undue advantage of the marital discord between the complainant and her husband. In the name of performing pooja, he induced her to pay money. He also deceit her that he has divine powers and by performing said pooja, he would bring change in her life. He also made her believe that if she failed to perform that pooja, there is every threat to her life as well as life of her children and husband. Thereafter he outraged her modesty. That being so, he does not deserve any leniency.

10. Needless to say, the allegations against the petitioner are very grave and serious in nature. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other case and he has the responsibility

of maintaining his wife and three minor children, while maintaining the quantum of sentence imposed u/s 354 and 508 IPC, the substantive sentence awarded u/s 420 IPC is modified to two years while maintaining the fine as imposed by the Trial Court. The petitioner is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation, besides a sum of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the learned Trial Court to be paid out of the fine imposed upon the petitioner. Compensation be paid to the complainant within a period of eight weeks through the concerned Investigating Officer.

With this modification, the revision petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Petitioner be informed through Superintendent Jail.

(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE MAY 19, 2016/rs