Full Text
Judsment reserved on : Ausust, 2018
Date ofdecision :12.09.2018
MANOJ Appellant
Through Mr.Kanhaiya Singhal, Adv. ,^ei^us THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF BELHI .Ckespondent for the
DhShnendra
:7- r. ^ ,r /?>
JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Appeal No. 1189/2016 filed by the appellant^convict assails t^e impti'gnBd dated 27.8.2016 and order of sentence dated 31.8.2016 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, North (Rohini) whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 6 ofthe Prevention of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 whereby the convict was sentenced to 2018:DHC:9295 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 6 ofthe POCSO Act, 2012 but no separate sentence was awarded to the convict for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code wittffthe fbenefit, of Section 428 of the t X'k: S i' P Cr.P.C., 1973 havingJbVen grantqd,^tp:ithe convict/^he Delhi State Legal ServicesAuthority (North'pistr^^^^ DeMfwas further directed to ensure that the amount of^Rsl-2i00',000/- was granfed to the victim as compensation to piJopd#refi4® and compensatory fInfill justice. j,||
2. Theappellant is in c]astQdMan| fe^ro^^^ warrants were issued fiw to procure his presence on 7.8.2018,
3. The Trial Court Record has been requisitioned and perused.
4. On behalf of the appellant^ leamfed- Legal Aid counsel Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate, addressed his submissions in support of the contentions made in the appeal to contend that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were wholly infirm and inconsistent and did not bring forth the guilt ofthe appellant even remotely. -IT"
5. On behalf of the State, Ms.Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State, contended that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established the guilt of the appellant/convict to the hilt of his commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the child victim aged 10 years at the time of sexual assault and that there exists no ground for any leniencywhatsopvet; P, -
6. Along with the.appeal Crl.M.A. No. 19631M6lan application / f 4 V ' ' under Section' 5-ofthe Liinjtation coridpiiation of30 days' delay«>-^was filed Which \vW^p0.bned vide ordii^., dated 15.12.2016. Vide Order data'^S.iliBMiiminal M.C. 399/18 under •' (S"). I ), H fig Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. sse|kiii&ra$|)ension of sentence of the appellant till- pendency of<.|P^'a^^'-#^^|yined. Vide order dated kkM 7.7.2018, the nominal rolf^j^&ygf^t was called for which indicates thatit has been received vide letter 4ated 30.7.2018 from the Superintendent, Central Jaii" Tiltar Vvhich indicates that the appellant as on 30.7.2018 had undergone a period of four months and 24 days of incarceration with remission of five months 10 days with the unexpired portion of the sentence being five years one month and 26 days if the fine of Rs.5000/- imposed was paid. Apparently, the c said fine imposed vide the impugned order on sentence dated 31.8.2016 has not been paid by the appellant.
7. A perusal of the Trial Court Record and the testimonies of the 13 prosecution witnesses examined indicate that the date of the incident was the night intervening 5/6.3.2014 though apparently it has been mentioned as 5.3.2014:initK£FIR'EX.?EW-12/A-l and thus is so
1. ^ ri 6 s 4-^^ mentioned in the Chkrge ofalleg^ipnsJramed on 19^8!S014. 'I %•. '
8. PW-1.'"' ",. 1,'R', the minorcKu®!^^^iMeil;ity is witfihd^ and who was not administered oatk'butrwh^f^l^ipetence to test% was ascertained by the learned/^TrialSCbrf before, examination on 11 ifti n 30.1.2015 indicatesthatonthp^|o^fa^aminationthe minorchild was studying in Standard Alipur Police Station 1 j. u and stated that he was borh%i^miE®^^|fi0rand he had two brothers inclusive of himself and two sisters. On examination of the minor..'t. childwho on being asked by tne leamed'"''iVi£l Court as to whether one should speak the truth or lie, replied that one should speak the truth, andthe learned Trial Court concluded that he was a competent witness but did not administer him oath observing to the effect that the child would not understand the sanctity of the same in view of his tender Mn.' / / age. The testimony of this child witness is to the effect that his father had gone to the native village and thus he was residing with his uncle Vishwadev (PW-2) in a farm where his uncle was also working as a farmer and on 6.3.2014 he had just finished his dinner and was about to sleep and at that time the convictManoj, the appellantherein, came there and took him to the roof a!iid took off^he clothes of the minor child/PW-1) and took, off his own. clofhes and then ihserte his penis into the child's anus and'aNliaftime'i^^^^ for hel^iahd nobody 'Vf.listened to•him and then the^ child slepton)lie roof and felts^pain and was unable to walk properly and thenext'jnoming he got up and went H -w in-'i -; h' W Vit p to the school since he was nof f#lihg^il and one of his uncles Gyan had taken him to the doc^ taken acup oftea and alsohadtwo-threebiscuits^d^fel^^^^^^adtheninformedGyan about the entire incident and according to thq..child witness, his uncle Gyan informed the police.'^Tfel&or^l^stated that he was well acquainted with the accused and thus identified the accused as being the ciilprit as he was working as a security guard after his father went to the native village,. He further stated that hehimselfwas produced before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate where his CRL.A 1189/2016 Page 5of23 V ^ statementwas recorded and he (PW-1) identified his signatures on the statement Ex.PW-l/A and stated that he could identify the accused if shown to him and he correctly identified the accused in the Court during his testimony on 30.1.2015.
9. On being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, this witness stated; that "his^statement was recorded in the. y;; police stationon 6.3.2014 and thatjfj^jan met him ifMera Kalanand that he, the child^id not know'wKatAe%oe he stated%at he did not know theiame of the gunmanieriiblpyea at the farm house. He further stated that he was going,to,,schobl:'the next morning after the
1 Ifl 1.[1] incident after taking a bath andvnadiMt^t.told about the incident to anyone and had left the 01^||^||V^]|®||pd was going to seek medical aid with another ^ciquaini^c^|@|ipal on a cycle and on the way he met Gyan uncle^^^and that he howeverjihad not informed about the incident to Haripal and dM'WinfOTro-tlie incident to the doctor who attended him and for the first time he had narrated the incident to Gyan uncle and that he was taken for a medical check up to the hospital by police officials.
10. PW-2 put forth is Vishwadev who was the uncle of the victim D w 'if-. with whomthe minorchild was living and he statedthat he had given medical aid to the child and thus he (PW-2) had gone back to his house at Samaipur Badli, Delhi and on being cross-examined on behalf ofthe accused, i.e., the appellant herein, the witness stated that the victim was not residing with him but was residing at the farm of the accused, i.e., the appellant her,qin arid that the father of the victim had told him to take care ofhim 'i!, "k
11. PW-3 ^examined by the prosecution'|^as HC iRamdhan NO. 3172/OD ^ho registered the.FIR on'receipt ofthe rukka.
12. PW-4 examined was Dr'. Mek^kufoar, CMO, Dr.BSA hospital.;6 '„,iL V,'U •• " Rohini, who identified the [signatu|e||:^ Point 'A' being that of signatures of Dr. KaustuvMirM^ft®iM(B5ijdated 21.3.2014 bearing No. 3589/14 of the child^^^^^^^'The MLC EX-PW-4/A indicates that the child patient was brought ^or examination with the alleged history of sexual assault"on 3;3.2014 as informed by the Investigating Officer and the MLC was prepared on 6.3.2014 at 10:40p.m. vide MLC No. 3210/14 and samples had been collected then. The MLC No.3210/14 Ex.PW-6/B indicates that the male child PW-1 aged 10 years had been brought to the hospital with the alleged •0/ history of unnatural sexual assault at about 10:44 p.m.. It was observed further that proper history was not available, that there was no obvious external injury seen and that the samples, i.e. perianal swab, anal swab and a brown colour underwear of the child had been taken from the victim and handed over to the Investigating Officer.
13. PW-5 examined wasHead-Con^fabl^Rajinder Singh whostated S 'i ^ 'S: h.if"-'' that on that day i.e., 6.31'20l[4], he,,;y^as.^on patrollmg hav|ng been posted at PS S.P. of the r.sexually public person,"told him that at^Goyal^-afel^^ achild wa|| assaulted and when he reacnejdlheSfeM^iilpnd public persons present tM and one of them told him thatftheipgrsoMstanding near the wall was the same person who hadi sB)d!ll® "PsMted the child. The said person was apprehended with^g|^l§gfFthe public and the beat constable and thereafter he was taken to ^the police station and thereafter was handed over tbtte^hvestifMlig Officer SI Kaptan. He ftirther testified to the effect that SI Kaptan asked him to take the victim to the BSA Hospital for his medical examination and thereafter the Investigating Officer arrested the accused vide memo EX.PW-5/A and thereafter he accompanied the victim to the police station and Y handed over the pulandas to the Investigating Officer which were seized vide memo Ex. PW-5/B and Ex.PW-5/C. This witness on cross examination by the counsel for the accused stated that all the seizure memos were prepared at the Police Station and not at the spot.
14. PW-6 examined by the prosecution is Dr. Brijesh Patel, CMO, Dr. BSA hospital who testified t[8]:Jiaving^examined a male aged 40.i"' ^ H ^ li- R I years vide MLC N%f §209/14,..and^stated that examined the patient/victim*,;aged 10,par, ok^ boy'MdfetMLC N%.32i0/14 and observed 1:hat the victim had two^f'small cut injuries-'^^of size approximately 0.5MM X IMM-'x present on interior part of 'n,p {^<1, B w anal area. t^limafe?S®i^iloF^Silsi
15. PW-9 Dr.Mukesh Kumar/zjiiMofltlstc Medicine, Dr. BSA hospital has testified to tH^1e^^M^p^3.2014 a male, namely. Manoj aged 40 years had been brought to thevhospital for the potency test and he had conducted the¥aMe^and'^estified to Ex.PW-9/A being the report prepared by him.
16. Ex.PW-9/A hidicates that it was opined by Dr.Mukesh Kumar that there was nothing to say that the person examined was unable to perform sexual intercourse. CRL.A 1189/2016 Page 9of23 V- 17, 'A', PW-7 the father ofthe minor child 'R' was examined on 13.5.2015 who testified to the effect that his son was aged about 12 years and that he PW-7 was working as a Guard in the Goyal Farm situated at Budhpur, Alipur and his son used to reside with him and used to study at a school (identity having been withheld), stated that he had gone to his native villag^grlitem^iage ofhis daughter, by.r- LJ ^ leaving his son at his room at,.Gqyal Farm as he was having his ^^ examinationsr'anH^had ask^'dl^'^^tififfepiMev whd':ustd to reside in Budhpij&frto look after liilpoli^rH^f^^r stated that feh^d also asked the accused Manoj, i.l^il&iyilf^t'herein to take care ofhis 11iffII son in his absence as he waslAkinl^^ guard in his absence, i.e., -ilM absence ofPW-7. He furthei*$\^ig:^%at the,accused, i.e., the appellant herein, used to sleep at th#%^^|g),^^7's room and on 6.3.2014 his son called him i.e. PW-7 and told him that the accused Manoj had committed wrong act wiiKwm aiid^hus PW-7 called his cousin telephonically and asked him to visit his son and to know his well being and PW-2 thus met his son who narrated the whole incident to him and PW-7 stated that he could not return due to his daughter's marriage and lateron called his cousin Vishwadev who asked him to reach Delhi as soon as possible. This witness stated that on 7.4.2014 hereached atthe Goyal Farmhouse and came toknow that his son was staying at the Bal Sudhar Grah and he brought back his son who told him that the accused Manoj who was in jail had committed wrong with him. No cross-examination of this witness was conducted on behalf ofthe accused. >, ^ ^1" -if
18. PW-8 examined was Ct.Dinesh No.34'37/OD^|; PS S.P.Badli who testified'^.to.^the effect'"he was"'pdsted at PS v,';; • S.P.Badli "gnd was on emergency diity/^Stm 8 p.m. to 8im!ni. He,'XKSI" further stated that he brought the Victifri'.'to the police station and thereafter the matter was haMe|il|)'^eE|t% SI Kaptan and SI Kaptan arrested the accused vide his signatures at '"'"Mi' 'kUi -,[1] point 'B' and the personal leiaf|j^i|^^jpTiCsed was taken vide memo Ex.PW-8/A, bearing his signatures at point 'AJ. He further stated that the accused also made his diisciosife statement vide Ex.PW-8/B which bears his signatures at point A and was taken to the place of occurrence where the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo vide Ex.PW-8/C which bears his signatures at point A.
19. PW-10 Dr.Priyanka Singh, SR Psychiatry, Dr. BSA Hospital, r \ Rohini, Delhi, who on 7.3.2014 examined the patient Manoj, 40 years vide OPD Card bearing No. 3209/14Ex.PW-lO/Athat the patient, i.e., a reference to the accused,i.e., the appellant herein being a regular user ofalcohols, with alcohol intake present.
20. PW-11 Madan Mohan, the Chowkidar who used to work at Goyal Farm House, Badshahi^Rbld, piera iCalan, stated that on the date of the incident^e victim ^asvrfsiding with him) PW-11 as the child's father'ha^'gone after 1li^2ltnonths of,jw' vf,. the incideritfthe InvestigatirfgPfficer''|||||^me to investigatejhe case %t''' • ^^i9S0 and he (PW-11) had showii theiroqmfwhere the victim 'R' was •|| M il t iilitii'-ff residing and where the wrong!act wai/c'pinmitted with him, but stated that hePW-11 did not kno#anm®fg%ta case.
21. PW-12 examined by^th^^eiH^p^aptan, the Investigating Officer ofthe Case whQ^supported the pros^^^tion version in toto as set forth in the charge shM^^^stifit^^'Ex.PW-2/A being the statement of uncle of the victim recorded by him, Ex.PW-12/A being the rukka attested by PW-12 on the statement of the uncle of the victim Ex.PW-2/A and testified to EX.PW-5/A being the arrest waiTant of the accused, Ex.PW-8/A being the personal search memo, Vand Ex.PW-8/B being the disclosure statement of the accused. Inter alia PW-12 testified to Ex.PW-12/B being the site plan of the spot prepared at the instance of the victim whereafter he came backto the police station and he along with HC Rajinder and Ct. Dinesh took the accused at the spot,i.e., Goyal Farm House where he pointed out the place of incident vide pointing ?6ut memp^;Ex.PW-8/C. He further s 1*"^ I if stated that on the same"day the,,statement ofthe minor child under Section 164,fGr.P.C. was ^"jPW-12/w^d a copy thereof wafobtained by the.ihves\igating^0'fficer on applyilififor the ' ' jW''•^-.'^'^'3 I ''''' same vide application Ex.PW/12/pf|nd/it|i^^ the custody of the •f itillvjf victim was handed overto his uncle, "fel^his^ witness also testified to the effect that the accused waiip|o^i|G^d SefbrW'the concerned Court and •HliV i -'I''' sent to Judicial custody o n w a s taken to BSA W hospital for his potency test and after examination the report was obtamed fi-om the concerned dbctcifEx.PW-9/A. PW-12 further stated that on 31.3.2014 on his instructions the exhibits of the case were deposited with the FSL by Constable Gulshed Ahmad and the FSL result had been filed on record as Ex.F-1. The investigating officer stated that after recording the statements of the witnesses and CRL.A1189/2016 Page13of23 r \ completion ofinvestigation, he filed the chargesheet in the Court.
22. On being cross-examined, PW-12 denied that he had not taken the signatures ofthe victim on Ex.PW-12/B.
23. PW-13 examined was Parveen Kumar Singh, the teacher ofthe Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Alipur and testified to the effect that as per admissioffliRfgister the child, i.e, 'R' was; n a & t! )' admitted in class Vicori r.4.2014-.:yide.,admission I^l>jl0449 and that his date ofbirthvwas menti6rie(t^r^6fS\)2i^|C|pd placed.a'copy ofthe certificatefefespect of th^mlnbf,!g^ld]^l;^ing the signatur|s,Aof the Principal Sh.Asha Ram oftlifcs&^^teto6ertificateEx.PW-13/C. 11|
24. Through his statementluhter Seftion 313 Cr.P.C. the accused, J, MM i.e., the appellant hereinled against him and stated thatthe father ofthe^i^^M^ftt victim in custody ofhis cousin and has admitted his medical examination vide MLC No.3209/2014 Ex.PW-6/A'St#l)PSl:aSEX.PW-10/A but has denied that he committed any offence against the minor child stating that he had been falsely implicated. He further stated that he was wrongly arrested and that he had made no statement, (i.e., the disclosure statement Ex.PW-8/B). He fiirther stated that no incident CRL.A1189/2016 Page14of23 It V as alleged had happened and that the witnesses were interested witnesses. Though vide statement dated 19.4.2016 he sought to lead evidence in defence, but no such evidence was led by the accused, i.e., the appellant herein. Inter alia the accused had stated that he was innocent and reiterated that the witnesses who testified against him were interested witnesses and thafhe had be,en falsely implicated ANALYSIS ' ' ^
25. The age of the There is noOstensible dispute that the school record;6f^the:hiiri6tchild indicated thathis date '.i' 4 Vk'^i B I of birth was 26.8.2003 and ttelif'v^f|^|"child" within the meaning given under the POCSO ||eti^<^flttoi} tfle'^ate 5.3.2014/6.3.2014 of the incident, i.e.. DelavJn resistration ofthe.,FIR 1*^, j 26. The incident has taken place ori 5/6-3-14 and the FIR was lodged on 7.3.2014. The father ofthe minor child was not in Delhi and had gone for his daughter's marriage and the child 'R' could not go for the marriage as he had his examinations and that he had to apprise his uncle about the same is a factor which has to be considered and CRL.A 1189/2016 Page 15of 23 t cannot be overlooked. The registration of the FIR at 1:15 a.m. on 7.3.2014 thus cannotbe termedto be delayed in any mannerespecially as information to the Beat Officer at PP Khera Kalan was given on 6.3.2014 itself TESTIMONIES CONSISTENTINRELATION TO MA TERIAL PARTICULARS
27. The testimonies,.of theiMlribr cHild %l'#|inined as PW-1 and the uncle of the?minor childve^clmined asvPW[2] are'!|fategorical and cogent and^-^hsistently""^^^S3|i||||^^^^ of the witness "SS-' Ex.PWl/A^ir'e.,-thetranslate|[^''^(^io^,^^ppection 164Cr.P'.C., 1973 th|eie®l£|effect: statement ofthe child is to removed my clothes and committed wrong act with me for 2-2 V[2] hours. I screamed but no one was there. I wentfrom his^j'pom and in the 'W with me. I do not want to sayanything else.
28. As rightly observed by the learned Trial Court vide para 31 of the impugned judgment: "•Testimony of the victim, with relation to the incident is reassuring as he has been consistent throughout in describing what the accused did to CRL.A1189/2016 Page 16of23 94) V T ', '. •. him. Merely thefact that the victim did not testify as to whether he called hisfather to inform about the incident does not go to the root of the matter. While appreciating testimony ofvictim, it has to be kept in mind that victim is merely 10 year old boy and description ofthe act as given by the victim is accurate and is narrated with the understanding of a 10 year old child. Despite the cross-examination ofvictim no material contradiction came out. No reason has been attributed to him as to why he woidd falsely ajleg^fhdffacc^used has committed sexual assauii%h,kim." " ^ 29. The testimony of PWl the ^miilor.child, PW21}^rshwadev the uncle with whom the chiM lived wheniiiifai^er was away';;&,om work, ' i ^ -niv'-nn PW[9] Dr. -Mukesh Kumar <wh[6] teslifiMlto his report Ex.PW-9/A which indicated that there was'nothinato indicate that the petitioner « m %i '»wii was not potent are all in syn^h^^lM tfelestimony ofPW[2] Vishwadev who was informed ofthefftpiHerit ofthe minor child as the father had himselftelephonically informed the PW[2] ofthe incident also thus corroborates s.^^|>n also set forth by the PW-7, the father ofthe minor child examined as PW-7.
30. The testimony of this witness was categorical to the effect that on 6.3.2014 his son called him and told him that the accused/i.e., the appellant herein had committed a wrong act with him whereof he had called his cousin to visit his son who had narrated the entire incident y \ to him, the testimony of PW-7, the father of the minor child corroborates that he had asked Manoj to take care of the minor child when he was away due to his daughter's marriage and that when he was going to.theGoyal Farm House, he learnt that his son was staying in Bal Sudhar Grah and he got his son back and his son told him that Manoj the accused,i.e., the appplFalt Hefeinvhad committed wrongact • ' i-./ I- 'y, Sectionn64, 1973 as the learnfeil Link Magistrate observed to child understands the 11 ftif importance and sanctity of |h||oat|||d^i|ing the proceedings under to him. Section 164 Cr.P.C. and depose&Ml56atlials% -ifI
32. Throughthe availabfl|^^^^|^5ftilnony ofthe child 'R' as PWl, his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.Q. and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses^ thus ^sttbli^h-beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused Manoj, i.e., the appellant herein, that on the night intervening 5-3-2014/6-3-2014 had taken the minor child out of the custody of PW-2 and committed an illegal act of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on him by commission of carnal intercourse. There is no inconsistency in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined in relation to material particulars. There is no explanation whatsoever that the accused/appellant herein, has put forth in support of his plea of innocence as to why the minor child would falsely implicate him for the commission of a sexual assault. There is no explanation also|puf;lfdip:h by^the accused as to why Vishwadev the uncldiofthe victim.woyld falsely impli|ate the accused nor there is any explanatipn even^soughtto-beput forth b,y"lhe accused that he was on any inimical terms with theTather ofthe minorjchild.
33. The injuries on the interio^r partoft|eanal area ofthe victim as 5; I'i/: ll'ij )| l| depicted in EX.PW-6/B, the|ls|iL^ child also corroborate the version ofthe
34. In the circumstances of the case, as rightly held by the learned Trial Court, the guilt ofthe^&uMi i.e^the appellant herein qua the commission of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 377 IPC, 1860 qua the commission ofthe aggravated penetrative sexual assault in terms of Section 9 (p) of the POCSO Act, 2012 in as much as the child was under the care of the T accused, i.e., tiie appellant herein who had committed aggravated penetrative sexual intercourse by having violently committed carnal intercourse against the order ofnature with a minor child ofthe same sex as the appellant herein is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of the minor child through his testimony on oath as PW-1 and his statement underaS^^idtf16^G:r.P.C. are categorical to the effect that the appellant insprte,d«his penis int#T|ie anus of the minor child..flhjhese ci^^ms&lffil&toction of^lie appellant herein for Ihe^ commission(|^|^i^^^[)enetrativesex^assault by way ofcarnal intercourseijs'to Section 6 ofthe POCSO •|l,f ifill I' Act, 2012 and the appeal bein|ie#ii||%y merit is hereby rejected.
35. During the course ofthe^ar^^|^ll appellant sought mercy. However as rightly held by the learned Trial Qourt vide the impugned order on sentence for a detefrerit%Mtence-in'terms of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 wasrequired inthe circumstances ofthe case, more so, as the appellant herein was in capacity of trust and authority over the child in as much as the father of the minor had left him, i.e., the minor 'R' to his care also apart from leaving the minor child to the T" care of PW-2 and it, is established that the appellant herein had taken the child on the terrace and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault by way of carnal intercourse with him and that too with a minor aged 10 years.
36. In the circumstances there is no ground for leniency and apart from the same, it is essentialjy|p|serv0dthafeSection 6 of the POCSO prescribesaminimumtermofrigpr^ji^^prisoWe^ffpr^atermwhich is notto be lessihan 10 yfe^J^E'^l^i^riiS^exteiidtolinlprisonment for life and'itlik the accused,•'i.e.,'^?the'aDpellant herein is alsCliable to pay afine and thus the sentencKimpbsed^yide the impugned judgment of the rigorous imprisonment for a p;eriod of 10 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default ofone to||implej injprisonment ofone month for offence uiider-?Gp§<^|a'ct', 2012 is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed...0-. • REFORMATimWKdiSRAMME
37. In terms of the verdict of Supreme Court in Phul Singh Vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 506/1979 decided on 10.09.1979 ^d directions laid down by;us in Sanjay vs. State 2017 III AD (Delhi) 241, dated 20.02.2017 so that the ''carceral period w reforms the convicf it is essential that the following directives detailed hereunder are given to the sentence of imprisonment.
38. The concerned Superintendent at the Tihar Jail, New Delhi where the appellant shall be incarcerated forthe remainder of the term of imprisonment as hereinabove directed shall consider an appropriate programme forthe appellant.pnBittihg^aiffeasible: • H Piappropriate^^y^^fectional cdti|ses through m-e^itational'therlpyl; "Vs:., • educational&ppppKtiiniw, vocational#^raining '-and..kill diMfiSlUmme to a livelihood optio^|an^^^iq^|u^^ status; • shaping release rehabilitation programme for|ti||;|p|ej[l||it well in advance before the date ofhis/riilease tQ^ma|;e.him self-dependent, • ensurin^J?|ti§^r|^|r^^^ 22 clause 22.22
(II) Model Prisji^^^!p^^pbl[6], protection of the appellant from getting associated with anti - social groups, agencies of moral hazards (like gambling dens, drinfeg^placesi^^ndf#brothels) and with demoralised and^depnved persons; • adequate counselling being provided to the appellant to be sensitized to understand why he is in prison; • conducting of Psychometric tests to measure the reformation taking place; and • that the appellant may be allowed to keep t contact with his family members as per the Jail rules and in accordance with the Model Prison Manual.
39. Furthermore, it is directed that a Bi-annual report is submitted by the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, New Delhi to this Court till the date of release, of the measures being adopted for reformation and rehabilitation of the appellant.
40. Copy ofthis |udgment be also senrfoliBle Director General, Prisons, Del|ii and to the Secretary, Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, GNCTD, Delhi,to/,ensure,incompliance of thi^S"above •• f * /\<v *fc directions. The copy of this judgment tie supplied to the appellant and be sent to the Superintendent Jail^ Tihar.
41. The record ofthe trial.'G6urt;be"|:ebmed forthwith. ANU MALHOTRA, J SEPTEMBER12*^,HftfP CRL.A 1189/2016 Page23of23 y