Suraj v. State (G.N.C.T. of Delhi)

1. The appellant- Suraj impugns judgment dated 24.02.2011 and order on sentence dated 26.02.2011 in Sessions Case No.245/2007 arising out of FIR No.331/2007 PS Nand Nagri by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and SI for seven years under Section 376 IPC. 2013:DHC:1395

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 21.04.2007, he kidnapped prosecutrix ‘X’ (assumed name) and committed rape upon her. It was also alleged that Usha @ Munni and Rahis were also involved in the commission of the said offences. A charge-sheet was submitted against Suraj, Rahis and Usha @ Munni for committing offences punishable under Sections 363/366/368/376/120B/34 IPC. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to substantiate charges. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 363/366/376 IPC. Usha @ Munni and Rahis were acquitted of the charges. Being aggrieved, the appellant- Suraj has preferred the appeal.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from the appellant- Suraj stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction under Sections 363/366/376 IPC. He however, prayed for modification of the order on sentence as the appellant has already undergone sentence for about 6 years.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the Trial Court record. Since the appellant has not opted to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Sections 363/366/376 IPC, the order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed. Regarding order on sentence, counsel for the appellant stated that the prosecutrix ‘X’ was a consenting party though out and had love affair with the appellant. They had performed marriage. The prosecutrix was compelled to give statement against the appellant under pressure from her parents. The appellant was sentenced to undergo SI for seven years under Section 376 IPC as the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age. Apparently, she was a consenting party. In her statement (Ex.PW-1/A), she admitted at the first instance that she was in love with the appellant and had married with him. No external or internal injuries were found on her body. The prosecutrix did not raise any alarm for her kidnapping though she remained in the company of the appellant for many days. Nominal roll reveals that the appellant has undergone sentence for 4 years, 7 months and 15 days as on 20.01.2012. He earned remissions for 2 months and 21 days. The period has since been increased to about 6 years. Learned APP has no objection if the appellant is ordered to be released for the period already undergone by him in this case. There are special and adequate reasons to modify the order on sentence and to award minimum sentence of seven years. Prosecutrix was a consenting party and had even performed marriage with the appellant.

5. Considering the facts and mitigating circumstances, the order on sentence is modified and the appellant is ordered to be released for the period already undergone by him in this case. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

JUDGE MARCH 14, 2013 tr