Delhi High Court
Allaudeen vs State on 26 February, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A.970/2018
ALLAUDEEN .... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate with
Mr. Mohit Bangwal, Advocate.
versus
STATE .... Respondent
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State.
Reserved On: 07th February, 2020
% Date of Decision: 26th February, 2020
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
1. Present appeal has been filed by appellant-convict challenging the
judgment dated 5th May, 2018 and the order on sentence dated 8th May, 2018
passed by Additional Sessions Judge (North-West) - 01, Special Court,
POCSO, Rohini District Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 53123/2016
arising out of FIR No. 185/2016 registered with Police Station Ashok Vihar,
whereby he had been convicted under Section 6 of Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO) and
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) and
sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 6 POCSO and two years rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The case of prosecution, as noted by the Trial Court, is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"1. The facts of the case as borne out from the record
are that on 29.03.2016, after entrustment of DD no.26-
A, SI Rama Saroha and Ct. Sonika reached at the informed
place i.e. CSA Colony, where ASI Raj Kumar, Ct. Satpal, both
the child victims P and A, mother of child victim P and
father of the child victim A were found present and father
of child victim A produced the accused before her. SI
Rama Saroha got both the child victims counseled through NGO
counselor, got them medically examined at BJRM Hospital and
also got accused medically examined. Thereafter, she made
inquiry from the complainant (mother of „P‟) and recorded
her statement, wherein she stated that on that day, at about 7.00
pm, her neighbour V.S. caught the accused red-handed while
removing the underwear of his daughter i.e. child victim A and
she also went there and on inquiry, child victim A
told her that 8/10 days prior, accused took her to his house,
got his children out of the jhuggi, removed her
underwear as well as his clothes and lie upon her and touched
his penis to her vagina, then ejaculated and when she
raised alarm, accused left her and threatened that in case, she
disclosed about the acts of accused to anyone, he will
kill her by cutting her neck. Child victim A also disclosed that
accused had also committed wrong act with the child victim P.
Thereafter she made inquiry from her daughter / child victim
P, who also told that accused took her to his house a day
before yesterday and asked her to remove her underwear,
for which, she refused and then, accused slapped her, pushed
her, removed her underwear forcibly and also removed his
pant and lie upon her and touched his penis to her vagina
and then ejaculated and thereafter, he threatened her that
in case, she disclosed about the acts of accused to anyone,
he will kill her by cutting her neck and because of the fear
of the accused, child victim A and P did not disclose about his
acts to anyone. She requested for legal action against the
accused. On the basis of statement of the complainant as
well as MLC, present case FIR was registered. Site plan of
the place of incident was prepared. Accused was arrested
and his personal search was conducted. The potency test of
the accused got conducted at RML Hospital. Statement of both
the child victims U/s 164 CrPC were got recorded. Documents
regarding the date of birth of child victims were collected and
thereafter, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was
prepared and filed before this court.
2. After filing of the charge sheet in the matter, the copy
thereof, was supplied to the accused. Arguments on the point
of charge were heard and on 11.07.2016, charges u/s 5(m) of
POCSO Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"),
punishable u/s 6 of Act and u/s 506 IPC was framed against the
accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."
FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT
3. The conclusion of the Trial Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"25. If the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments is
applied to the facts of the present case then it would be
evident that the child victims are consistent in their all the
statements. There is no dispute that conviction can be based on
the sole testimony of the reliable witnesses. Both the victims have
specifically narrated their incidents to the ld. M.M that accused
sexually assaulted them. Victim A has stated to the ld. M.M that
accused took her to his jhuggi and removed her panty and then
lie upon her. In the meantime, her father came and rescued her.
She also stated that about 10 days before also, accused took her
to his jhuggi and inserted his susu in her susu and
thereafter, her underwear got wet. Victim P has also stated
that on a particular day, when she was coming from toilet,
accused forcibly took her to his jhuggi and was touching
his toilet wali jagah to her toilet wali jagah and her
underwear got wet. He also threatened to cut her throat, if she
disclosed about his acts to any one. Both the victims are of
very tender age of 7and 8 years and certainly can be influenced
by the threats given by the accused. It was only when the father
of victim A caught the accused red¬-handed, both the victims
narrated the incident to their parents and then to the police.
26. The defence taken by the accused in the cross-examination
that he being a Muslim was isolated and there was a conspiracy
to throw him out of the area is not plausible. Father of the victim
A in the cross-examination has specifically stated that majority of
his neighbours are Muslims and the other muslims are not like
the accused. This clearly shows that accused was not the sole
Muslim living in that area and there was no conspiracy to
remove him from the locality.
27. I do not find any contradictions and improvement in the
testimonies of both the victims, duly corroborated by the father of
the victim A, who caught the accused red-handed on 29.03.2016.
It cannot be ignored that there is a presumption against the
accused u/s 29 of the act that he has committed this act and once
the prosecution has established the guilt, it was for the accused
to rebut that presumption, which he has failed to. Accused
therefore, is convicted for committing offence punishable u/s 6 of
the Act r/w u/s 5(m) of the Act for committed aggravated
penetrative sexual assault upon two victim children.
28. Coming to the offence u/s 506 IPC, victim P has all among
stated that after sexually assaulting her, the accused threatened
to kill her, if she will disclose this fact to any person. There is no
cross-examination on this aspect and as such, prosecution has
proved that accused threatened victim P and because of that
threats, she did not disclose about the sexual assault on her to
any person including her parents. Prosecution as such, proved
the commission of offence by the accused u/s 506 IPC beyond
reasonable doubt and the accused is convicted for offence
punishable u/s 506 IPC as well."
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-CONVICT
4. Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellant-convict
contended that the statements of the two minor prosecutrixes „A‟ and „P‟
were inconsistent and unreliable.
5. He stated that the prosecutrix „A‟ in her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. had stated that no penetration had occurred on the day
the complaint was lodged with the police, yet when she had deposed before
the Court she had stated that on the day the complaint was lodged with the
police the appellant-convict had committed the act of penetrative sexual
assault. He pointed out that prosecutrix „A‟ in her deposition had also stated
that the appellant-convict had not committed sexual assault upon her prior to
the date of the complaint. He emphasised that she had rather deposed when
the appellant-convict had earlier tried to commit sexual assault upon her, she
had beaten him up.
6. He also stated that though prosecutrix „P‟ had stated in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had told her mother about the
sexual assault by the appellant-convict, yet in her testimony she had deposed
that she had informed prosecutrix „A‟ and it was she who had informed her
mother about the alleged incident of sexual assault.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-convict contended that since there
were no external injuries on either prosecutrix „A‟ or prosecutrix „P‟ and
their internal medical examination had not been conducted, the prosecution
had failed to prove its case against the appellant-convict. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prahlad vs.
State of Rajasthan, 2018 (4) Crimes 372 and judgment of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in Nikka Ram vs. State of H.P., 2019 CriLJ 1834. In
view of the aforesaid, he prayed that the impugned judgment and order on
sentence be set aside.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
8. Per contra, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State stated that
the prosecutrix „A‟ (PW-7) and prosecutrix „P‟ (PW-8) had remained
consistent and had corroborated each other‟s testimonies. She emphasised
that they had supported the case of the prosecution and there were no
material contradictions in their testimonies.
9. Learned APP for State pointed out that prosecutrix „A‟ had swapped
the dates of incident of penetration and sexual assault in her testimony and
the same had occurred because her testimony had been recorded about eight
months later.
10. She relied upon the statement of prosecutrixes „A‟ and „P‟ recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as their depositions. The English
translation of their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C and their
depositions are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A) Statement of Prosecutrix 'A' recorded under Section 164 Cr.
P.C.
"Statement of victim A aged about 8 years, R/o (victim‟s
address), Delhi U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Oath is exempted as child is below 12 years.
"All of us were playing. At about 6 O‟Clock, Uncle
Alauddin called me. He took me to his Jhuggi and removed my
underwear and laid upon me. He removed his clothes and laid
upon me and did not do anything. I started crying. My father
came over there. My father gave him much beatings. Ten days
ago, he was tempting me by way of giving me toffee. He forcibly
took me to his Jhuggi. Thereafter, he inserted his private part
into my private part and my underwear became wet. Therafter I
came. Yesterday, the Police arrived. There was an exchange of
beatings. I told that the said man harassed me much. Then the
police took him along with them. He had told that he would
behead me."
Sd/- (illegible)
(in English)
(MM/NW)
30.03.2016
R O & AC
RTI of „A‟"
B) Deposition of Prosecutrix 'A' (PW-7)
"Q. Beta batao kya hua tha?
Ans. Ek din main sham ko 6 baje gali mai khel rahi thi „P‟ ke
sath to Allaudeen ne mera hath pakad liya aur mujhe
apni jhuggi ma le gaya.
Q. Beta Allaudeen uncle kon hain?
Ans. Wo meri gali mai rehte hain.
Q. Beta Allaudeen uncle ne jhuggi mai kya kiya?
Ans. Unhone apne kapda uttar diya aur mera kapda bhi uttar
diya aur apna susu mere susu mai daal diya.. Main zor se
chilai to mere papa aa gaye. Unhone Allaudeen ko mara,
fir police ko bula liya police ne Allaudeen ko bahut mara.
Q. Allaudeen uncle ne aur kya kiya tha?
Ans. Wo mujhe chocolate de kar lalchaa raha tha. Ek din
Alaudeen uncle meri deh per laut raha tha to maine unhe
maar kar bhaga diya.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Accused Allaudeen is present in court today (correctly
identified by the witness through the design of wooden partition.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
.....Ye kehna sahi hai ki Allaudeen uncle ne meri peshab
karne wali jagah main apni peshab karne wali cheez daali thi
jis din police wahan aai thi. Ye hi baat maine Judge aunty ko
bhi bata di thi."
C) Statement of Prosecutrix 'P' recorded under Section 164 Cr.
P.C.
"I was sleeping in the house. I felt a call of nature. I
was returning after answering the call of nature. Uncle forcibly
took me along with him. He took me a day before yesterday. It
was day time. I do not know the name of Uncle. He forcibly
removed my underwear after taking me to the house. He
removed all of his clothes and then laid upon me. He was
touching his private part with my private part and my
underwear became wet. Then nothing happened. Then I
returned to my house. I told my mother about it a day before
yesterday. He had told that in case I tell about that, he would
behead me."
D) Deposition of Prosecutrix 'P' (PW-8)
"Q. Beta Allaudeen uncle kon hain?
Ans. Wo mere ghar ke pass hi rehte hai.
Q. Beta kya hua?
Ans. Ek din main dopahar mai main apne ghar mai so rahi thi.
Sote sote mujhe zor se toilet laga aur mai toilet karne
bahar gai to Allaudeen uncle ne mujhe zabardasti pakad
kar apni jhuggi mai le gai.
Q. Beta fir kya hua?
Ans. Usne apne kapda utara aur meri chaddi khol di aur mere
upper let gaya aur apna toilet mere toilet se sata raha
tha. Mujhe thoda thoda dard hua tha.
Q. Beta aur kya hua?
Ans. Usne mujhe bola tha ki agar tu ye baat kisi ko batayegi to
tujhe jaan se maar dunga. Fir maine ye baat apni saheli
„A‟ ko batai aur usne ye baat meri mummy ko batai.
Q. Beta fir kya hua?
Ans. Fir „A‟ ke papa ne phone karke police ko bula liya. „A‟
ke papa ne us uncle ke bahut maara tha aur policewala
us uncle ko bitha kar gadi mai le gaye the."
11. In view of the aforesaid, the learned APP contended that the
prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellant-convict
and prayed that his conviction be confirmed.
COURT‟S REASONING
THE TESTIMONIES OF BOTH THE PROSECUTRIXES INSPIRE
CONFIDENCE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF THEM BEING TUTORED IS
RULED OUT. THEIR INITIAL STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SEXUAL ASSAULT ARE CORROBORATED BY THEIR
MLCs AND THE DEPOSITION OF THEIR PARENTS.
12. It is settled law that the deposition of a child witness may require
corroboration, but in case his/her deposition inspires the confidence of the
Court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the Court may
rely upon his/her evidence. Further, the evidence of a child witness must be
evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he/she is
susceptible to tutoring. An inference as to whether the child has been
tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his/her deposition. [See :
State of M.P. Vs. Ramesh & Anr., (2011) 4 SCC 786]
13. In the present case, the testimonies of both the prosecutrixes inspire
confidence and the possibility of them being tutored is ruled out. Their
initial statements and depositions with respect to the sexual assault are
corroborated by their MLCs and the deposition of their parents. The relevant
portions of the MLC of the two prosecutrixes and the deposition of their
parents are reproduced hereinbelow:-
A) MLC of Prosecutrix 'A' (Ex. PW-5/B)
"BABU JAGJIVAN RAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DELHI-110033
MLC REGISTER
No. Name A. Father‟s /Husband Name _______
113621 Age _____ Sex Female Religion ___
Occupation __
Residence___ Name of relative of friend Ct.Kuldeep 2174/NW
Date of examination 29/03/2016
Date and hour of arrival PARTCIULARS OF INJURIES OR
23/03/16 11.04 pm SYMPTOMS, IN CASE OF
POISONING
No. and date of police docket
28-PP B/B Police for M/E
No. and name of Constable A/H/O Sexual assault
W/32 Rama Saroha
Police Station Ashok Vihar xxx xxx xxx
B/B Police for MLC.
In Admitted { Date of admission __
Date of Discharge __
A/H/O- attempt of sexual assault by
man on 27/3/16
xxx xxx xxx
xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx
Examining Medical Officer"
B) Testimony of father of Prosecutrix 'A' (PW-9)
"On 29.03.2016 at about 7 or 7:30 p.m. I was returning back
home from my work and when I reached outside the jhuggi of
accused Allaudeen, I saw that accused had caught hold my
daughter by her hand. I also saw that the underwear of my
daughter was lying removed. On seeing me my daughter
started weeping and I got annoyed and I strictly asked to
accused as to what he was doing with my daughter. On hearing
my voice my wife had also come in the jhuggi of accused and
other persons from the neighbourhood had also gathered.
Public persons also gathered at the spot. I called the police at
100 number. Police officials reached at the spot and made
preliminary inquiry from my daughter in the presence of my
wife. My daughter A had told me that 8-10 days prior to that
day accused had sexually assaulted her (Usko beizzat karne ki
koshish kiya tha).
Q. What do you mean by beizzat kiya?
Ans. My daughter had told that the accused had touched her
private part with his private part."
(emphasis supplied)
C) MLC of Prosecutrix 'P' (Ex. PW-5/A)
No. Name P. Father‟s /Husband Name _______
3620 Age _____ Sex Female Religion ___
Occupation __
Residence___ Name of relative of friend Ct.Kuldeep 2174/NW
Date of examination 29/03/2016
Date and hour of arrival PARTCIULARS OF INJURIES OR
23/03/16 11.25 pm SYMPTOMS, IN CASE OF
POISONING
No. and date of police docket
28-PP B/B Police for M/E
No. and name of Constable A/H/O Sexual assault
W/32 Rama Saroha
Police Station Ashok Vihar
xxx xxx xxx
In Admitted { Date of admission __
Date of Discharge __
B/B Police for MLC.
A/H/O- attempt of sexual assault on
27/3/2016 by man
xxx xxx xxx
xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx
Examining Medical Officer"
D) Testimony of mother of Prosecutrix 'P' (PW-10)
"....I made inquiry from my daughter, who had told me that
accused Allaudeen had removed her clothes and his clothes as
well and touched her private part from his private parts and
made her clothes wet. „A‟ had also told me about the same thing
which was committed by accused upon her 8-10 days prior to
29.03.2016. Both the children kept quiet and did not disclose
this incident to anyone as the accused had threatened them not
to disclose about the incident otherwise he would cut their
heads (mundi kaat dunga)....."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Further, both the prosecutrixes had identified appellant-convict in
Court.
15. This Court is also of the view that the prosecutrix „P‟ has remained
consistent about the incident of sexual assault and the only contradiction in
her testimony is as to how her mother came to know about the incident. In
the opinion of this Court, the said contradiction is not material and does not
affect the case of the prosecution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that minor contradictions cannot be a ground for discrediting the entire
evidence. In Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab Alias Kuti Biswas and Another,
(2013) 12 SCC 796, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"28. ..... It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are
not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be
considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is
whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the
evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of
prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an
omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers
in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such
inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every
omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore,
minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant
embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and
should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution
evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the
truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious
contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the
prosecution but not every contradiction or omission....
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
31. The High Court, as we find, has read the evidence not as a
whole but in utter fragmentation and appreciated the same in total
out of context. It is to be kept in mind that while appreciating the
evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence
of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once
that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court
to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence
as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the
general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the
earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it
unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not
touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking
sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence,
attaching importance to some technical error committed by the
investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not
ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. ......."
(emphasis supplied)
SINCE THE DATES OF THE INCIDENT OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND
PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT MENTIONED BY PROSECUTRIX „A‟
IN HER DEPOSITION AND HER STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER
SECTION 164 ARE CONTRADICTORY AND THAT PARENTS OF BOTH
THE PROSECUTRIXES HAD DECLINED THE INTERNAL MEDICAL
EXAMINATION OF THE PROSECUTRIXES, THIS COURT IS OF THE
VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT-CONVICT IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF
DOUBT WITH RESPECT TO PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT.
16. However there is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant-convict that the dates of the incident of sexual assault and the
incident of penetrative sexual assault mentioned by prosecutrix „A‟ in her
deposition and her statement recorded under Section 164 are contradictory.
Though the explanation offered by Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP, of
swapping of dates of incident of sexual assault and the incident of
penetrative sexual assault is due to tender age of the prosecutrix „A‟ and the
time lag between the date of incidents / filing of FIR and recording of
evidence is plausible, yet keeping in view the fact that parents of both the
prosecutrixes had declined the internal medical examination of the
prosecutrixes and the Investigating Officer (PW-13) had in her cross
examination impliedly admitted that the hymen of the prosecutrixes were
intact, this Court is of the view that the appellant-convict is entitled to
benefit of doubt with respect to penetrative sexual assault.
IN VIEW OF THE DEMEANOUR OF THE PROSECUTRIX „P‟ AS
RECORDED BY THE TRIAL COURT, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION
THAT THE APPELLANT-CONVICT HAD THREATENED THE
PROSECUTRIX AFTER SEXUALLY ASSAULTING HER AND WHICH IS
WHY SHE WAS TERRIFIED IN COURT AFTER SEEING HIM.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROVED THAT APPELLANT-CONVICT
COMMITTED SEXUAL ASSAULT AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 7 OF
POCSO ACT UPON PROSECUTRIX „A‟ AS WELL AS PROSECUTRIX „P‟
17. It is also pertinent to mention that while recording the deposition of
Prosecutrix „P‟ (PW-8), the Trial Court had noted that after identifying the
appellant-convict, the minor prosecutrix „P‟ had started crying due to fear.
The observations of the Trial Court are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Accused Allaudeen is present in the court today (correctly
identified by the witness through the design of wooden partition.)
Court observation: After identifying the accused the child victim
has turned white and she has put her head down. She has been
consoled by the Ld. Support persons. At this stage, she has
started weeping. A recess of 10 minutes is ordered and the
accused has been sent to Ahlmad‟s room.
AFTER 10 MINUTES
XXX XXX XXX by Sh. Shubham Asri, Ld. Amicus Curiae for the
accused.
Court Observation : The witness appears to be little stable now.
I have again asked certain questions to her and she has given
rational answers thereto, however she kept looking backward
towards the wooden partition out of fear.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Court Observation : at this stage the witness has exhibited the
expressions of fear and she has started trembling. She has been
permitted to have a walk around for some time so that she gets
normal."
(emphasis supplied)
18. In view of the aforesaid demeanour of the prosecutrix „P‟ (PW-8),
while deposing before the Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the
appellant-convict had threatened the prosecutrix after sexually assaulting her
and which is why she was terrified in Court after seeing him.
19. Consequently, this Court finds that testimonies of prosecutrix „A‟ as
well as prosecutrix „P‟, with respect to the incident of sexual assaults and
threats, have a ring of truth, are clear, cogent, consistent, credible,
trustworthy and have been corroborated by other evidence and material on
record. Accordingly, it is proved that appellant-convict committed sexual
assault as defined under Section 7 of POCSO Act upon prosecutrix „A‟ as
well as prosecutrix „P‟. Section 7 of POCSO Act reads as under:-
"7. Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis,
anus, or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina,
penis, anus, or breast of such person or any other person, or
does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical
contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault."
(emphasis supplied)
CONCLUSION
20. In view of the aforesaid findings, present appeal is partly allowed
inasmuch as the conviction and sentence of appellant-convict under Section
6 of POCSO Act is set aside. However, the appellant-convict is convicted
under Section 8 of POCSO Act.
21. Since the appellant-convict has repeatedly committed sexual assault
upon two minor prosecutrixes, aged about seven and eight years, this Court
deems it fit to impose the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 8
of the POCSO Act. Consequently, the appellant-convict is sentenced to
imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
22. The conviction and order on sentence of the appellant-convict under
Section 506 IPC is confirmed and he shall be entitled to the benefit under
Section 428 Cr.P.C. The impugned judgment of the Trial Court and order
on sentence are modified accordingly.
23. Trial Court Record be sent back. Copy of judgment be sent to the
appellant-convict through the concerned Jail Superintendent.
MANMOHAN, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2020
sb/rn/js
