Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 769 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Sandeep alias Kartoon

2005-07-21

MEHTAB S.GILL, PRITAM PAL

body2005
JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J. - Murder reference No. 8 of 2004 was sent to this Court under Sections 363/366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirming of death sentence awarded to appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. 2. Appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 962-DB of 2004. We shall be deciding both Murder Reference No. 8 and Criminal Appeal No. 962-DB of 2004 together by a common judgment as they arise out of the same impugned/order dated 22/25.11.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide his judgment/order dated 22/25.11.2004 had convicted appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death subject to confirmation by the Honble High Court as per provisions laid down in Sections 363 and 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, appellant was convicted under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Appellant was further convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default thereof, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 4. This Court, vide its order dated 10.5.2005, had directed the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal to give its opinion as to whether DNA Test could be done or not. Vide its report No. 5506/FSN (H) Madhuban dated 12.5.2005, the Director, FSL, Madhuban has stated that the chances of isolation of quality DNA from the Pyjama for the purpose of DNA Test profiling are not good. Meaning thereby that, DNA Test cannot be done. 5. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by complainant Krishan son of Kewal Singh, who stated before Ram Kishan, Sub-Inspector in the Police Station that he is a potter. There is a Narain Ashram on the eastern side in the area of village Khanda. On 15.12.2002, there was a Bhandara in Narain Ashram. A lot of people came from nearby villages to participate in the Bhandara. There is a Narain Ashram on the eastern side in the area of village Khanda. On 15.12.2002, there was a Bhandara in Narain Ashram. A lot of people came from nearby villages to participate in the Bhandara. Jai Pal, aged 10/11 years, who was the son of Krishans brother Ganga Ram, also went to eat in the Bhandara. Jai Pal did not return in the evening. In spite of a search being done, he could not be found in the night. In the morning, Raj Pal son of Jai Bhan, resident of village Cholka met them and told that when he was present at Narain Ashram on 15.12.2002 at about 11.00 a.m., he saw Sandeep @ Kartoon along with Jai Pal going towards the canal. Complainant Krishan along with his brother Ganga Ram, Raj Pal and some other persons started searching for Jai Pal and while going towards the mustard field of one Daya Chand, they saw the dead body of Raj Pal (Jai Pal ?) lying in the middle of the mustard field. At that time, it was about 4.00 p.m. His clothes were lying over his dead-body. There were signs of strangulation. Complainant Krishan stated before the police that Sandeep @ Kartoon had committed the murder of Jai Pal by strangulation, after committing sodomy on him. 6. Statement of Krishan (PW-1) was recorded in Police Station Kharkhoda by Ram Kishan, Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer on 16.12.2002, on the basis which, FIR, Ex. PA, was recorded on 16.12.2002 at 6.30 p.m. Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Sonepat on 16.12.2002 at 10 p.m. 7. Prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness box Krishan (PW-1), Mahender Singh, Patwari (PW-2), Ram Phal, Head Constable (PW-3), Om Kanwar (PW-4), Raj Pal (PW-5), Hari Parkash (PW-6), Vijay Kumar, Constable (PW-7), Jai Singh, Head Constable (PW-8), Dr. R.K. Sahai (PW-9), Raj Singh (PW-10), Ram Tirath, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-11), Ram Kishan, Sub-Inspector (PW- 12), Ramesh Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-13), Yaad Ram, Sub-Inspector (PW-14), Dr. Arun Garg (PW-15), Ashok Kumar, Constable (PW-16), and Shri Sudhir Parmar, the then Judicial Magistrate I Class, Sonepat (PW-17). 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the death of Jai Pal had not taken place on 15.12.2002, but later on. Arun Garg (PW-15), Ashok Kumar, Constable (PW-16), and Shri Sudhir Parmar, the then Judicial Magistrate I Class, Sonepat (PW-17). 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the death of Jai Pal had not taken place on 15.12.2002, but later on. The story built up by the prosecution that the death of Jai Pal had taken place on 15.12.2002 after 11.00 a.m. is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Deceased Jai Pal was least seen on 15.12.2002 after 11.00 a.m. in the company of appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon by Raj Pal (PW-5). Raj Pal in his testimony before the Court, stated that he saw the appellant and deceased together at a Bhandara and thereafter, he saw them going towards the mustard field. Dr. Arun Garg (PW-15) has stated in his testimony that he performed the post-mortem on the dead-body of Jai Pal on 17.12.2002 at 1.30 p.m. He has further stated that the time between death and post-mortem was within 24 hours. Rigor mortis was present on all the four limbs. Learned counsel has argued that the post- mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased on 17.12.2002 at 1.30 P.M. Rigor mortis was present only on the limbs. Meaning thereby that rigor mortis was leaving the body. Time between death and post-mortem was not more than 24 hours to 30 hours. Taking 30 hours back from 1.30 p.m. on 17.12.2002, it comes out that the occurrence had taken place some time in the night between 15/16.12.2002 and that too not in the early hours of the night, but in the late hours. 9. Learned counsel has argued that in the inquest report, Ex. PM, which was prepared on 16.12.2002 at 6.30 p.m., Ram Kishan, Sub-Inspector (PW-12), the Investigating Officer, has not shown or mentioned that the deceased was sodomised. It is strange that in the FIR, Ex. PA, which was recorded on 16.12.2002 at 6.30 p.m., complainant Krishan (PW-1) states that sodomy had taken place and the name of accused Sandeep @ Kartoon is also mentioned. In fact, the truth is that the statement of the complainant had not been recorded or the FIR had not come into existence at 6.30 p.m. on 16.12.2002. 10. Raj Pal (PW-5), resident of village Cholka, has stated in his testimony that he had last seen the appellant along with deceased Jai Pal. In fact, the truth is that the statement of the complainant had not been recorded or the FIR had not come into existence at 6.30 p.m. on 16.12.2002. 10. Raj Pal (PW-5), resident of village Cholka, has stated in his testimony that he had last seen the appellant along with deceased Jai Pal. Raj Pal (PW- 5) is the cousin of the deceased. This witness has built up a false story that he went to his sisters house at Sonepat to see her, as his sister was not well. He came back to village Cholka on 16.12.2002 and then disclosed this fact, that he had seen appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon and deceased Jai Pal, to a group of persons, who were standing in the village. No reason has been given by Raj Pal (PW-5) as to why he did not enquire from Jai Pal, as to where he was going with the appellant. He did not inform the parents of deceased, that he had seen Jai Pal with the appellant. Instead, he left for Sonepat to meet his sister and came back the next day. This is a false story only to cover up the time gap of 24 hours between the murder of Jai Pal and he having alleged to have seen him in the company of the appellant. In fact, it is a blind murder. 11. The extra judicial confession made by appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon to Om Kanwar (PW-4) does not inspire confidence. Om Kanwar is a Lambardar of village Nasirpur Cholka. Occurrence had taken place in village Khanda. There was no reason for the appellant to make the extra judicial confession before Om Kanwar (PW-4). 12. The footprints moulds of the appellant taken from the place of occurrence were got compared with that of standard footprints moulds from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal. The report of the FSL is Ex. PB. Report, Ex. PB, cannot be taken into consideration, as by the time, footprints moulds were taken, many people had come to the place of occurrence and the footprints of the appellant must have been somethered by then. Ram Kishan, Sub-Inspector (PW-12), the Investigating Officer, could not have earmarked the place, where the appellant had left his footprints. Padding has been done to falsely implicate the appellant. 13. Finally, learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the quantum of sentence. Ram Kishan, Sub-Inspector (PW-12), the Investigating Officer, could not have earmarked the place, where the appellant had left his footprints. Padding has been done to falsely implicate the appellant. 13. Finally, learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the quantum of sentence. He has argued that the case of appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon does not fall within the parameters of the "rarest of rare cases". Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, though a shocking offence, but is triable by a Magistrate. Appellant was a young boy of 19 years at the time of framing of charge. At the most, one can say that appellant is a psychic case, who needs to be medically treated and reformed, rather than he be put to death. 14. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram, 2003(8) Supreme Court Cases 224, wherein their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court have observed that the normal punishment for murder is imprisonment for life and death penalty is an exception. There should be special facts and circumstances to award death sentence. A just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option of death sentence is exercised. 15. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the opinion of Dr. Arun Garg (PW-15) in stating that the duration between death and post-mortem is 24 hours, is to be taken as his opinion. Rigor mortis was present in the limbs at that time when post-mortem was performed by Dr. Arun Garg (PW-15). Rigor mortis starts leaving the body after 24 hours and carries on till 36 hours. At times, especially in the winter, rigor mortis to leave the body, can take more than 36 hours. If we take this aspect of the matter into consideration, occurrence then, had taken place on 15.12.2002 some time after 11.00 a.m. The exact time cannot be fastened. Ram Kishan (PW-12), the Investigating Officer, did not mention that sodomy had taken place on deceased Jai Pal in his inquest report, Ex. PM, as the inquest had been done on 15.12.2002 at 6.30 p.m. He could not examine the body of the deceased minutely, as at 6.30 p.m. it becomes dark in winter. 16. The First Information Report, Ex. Ram Kishan (PW-12), the Investigating Officer, did not mention that sodomy had taken place on deceased Jai Pal in his inquest report, Ex. PM, as the inquest had been done on 15.12.2002 at 6.30 p.m. He could not examine the body of the deceased minutely, as at 6.30 p.m. it becomes dark in winter. 16. The First Information Report, Ex. PA, was recorded on 16.12.2002 at 6.30 p.m. It is immediately thereafter that the inquest report, Ex. PM, was prepared. The name of appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon finds mention in the First Information Report. 17. Learned counsel for the State has further argued that last seen evidence is a truthful version. Raj Pal (PW-5) has stated in his testimony that on 15.12.2002 at 11.00 a.m., he had seen appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon and deceased Jai Pal at the Bhandara together. It is clear from the statement of Raj Pal (PW-5) that the occurrence had taken place some time after 11.00 a.m. Though deceased Jai Pal was the cousin of Raj Pal (PW-5), but at that time, he did not get suspicious nor worried to see Jai Pal in the company of the appellant. He did not suspect any mischief or foul play. They all belonged to the same village and knew each other. There was nothing suspicious at that moment of time. This was the reason that Raj Pal (PW-5) did not inform the uncle of Jai Pal. 18. The extra judicial confession made by appellant Sandeep to Om Kanwar (PW- 4) is believable. Deceased Jai Pal was a resident of village Cholka. Om Kanwar (PW-4) was a Lambardar and he knew the police personnal. Occurrence had taken place on 15.12.2002 and the extra judicial confession was made before this witness on 20.12.2002. Appellant made the confession, as he came to know that his name had figured in the First Information Report and that the complainant party had come to know that he had committed the murder of Jai Pal. Om Kanwar (PW-4) and the father of appellant Sandeep were known to each other. Learned counsel has argued that the case of the appellant falls within the parameters of the rarest of rare cases. 19. In Criminal Appeal No. 963-DB of 2004 appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon was convicted by the trial Court. Om Kanwar (PW-4) and the father of appellant Sandeep were known to each other. Learned counsel has argued that the case of the appellant falls within the parameters of the rarest of rare cases. 19. In Criminal Appeal No. 963-DB of 2004 appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon was convicted by the trial Court. Copy of challan in FIR No. 171 dated 23.8.2001 has been placed on the record of this case, Ex. PY, which also pertains to a case where one Amar Singh @ Bhallu, a boy aged 8 years, was sodomised and murdered by Sandeep @ Kartoon. In Criminal Appeal No. 963-DB of 2004 appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon had attempted sodomy and then murdered Rakesh. Appellant has committed three murders on different occasions only to fulfil his sexual desire. Learned counsel has stated that sodomy and murder of such a nature can be put at the same pedestal as that of rape and murder. 20. The case against appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As heinous offence has been committed, the murder reference be accepted. No leniency could be shown to such like serial killers. 21. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State and perused the record with their assistance. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on this aspect that the occurrence had taken place on 15.12.2002 at 11.00 a.m. Statement Ex. PA was made by complainant Krishan (PW-1) to Sub-Inspector Ram Kishan (PW-12) on 16.12.2002 at 6.30 p.m., which then set the police into motion. Krishan (PW-1) is none other than the brother of Ganga Ram, father of the deceased. On seeing that Jai Pal had not returned by the evening from the Bhandara in Narain Ashram in the area of village Khanda, he set out to search him. During the night, Jai Pal could not be found. In the morning, when he set out to find Jai Pal, on the way complainant Krishan (PW-1) met Raj Pal (PW-5) of his village, who disclosed that he had seen appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon with deceased Jai Pal going towards the canal. All the three, i.e., complainant Krishan, Ganga Ram and Raj Pal then went towards the canal and found the dead-body of Jai Pal in a mustard field of one Daya Chand. All the three, i.e., complainant Krishan, Ganga Ram and Raj Pal then went towards the canal and found the dead-body of Jai Pal in a mustard field of one Daya Chand. It was about 4.00 p.m. Leaving both Ganga Ram and Raj Pal, on the spot, Krishan went to Police Station Kharkhoda and got recorded his statement, Ex. PA/1 with Ram Kishan, Sub- Inspector/Station House Officer (PW-12), who was then investigating the case. The name of appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon was mentioned in the First Information Report. Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate on 16.12.2002 at 10.00 p.m. Mentioning of the name of appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon in the First Information Report clearly shows that at the time of recording of the First Information Report, complainant Krishan and his brother Ganga Ram were certain that appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon had murdered Jai Pal, after he had fulfilled his unnatural sexual lust. 23. The occurrence had taken place on 15.12.2002 some time after 11.00 a.m. Dr. Arun Garg (PW-15) who performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Jai Pal on 17.12.2002 at 1.30 p.m., has stated that the time between death and post-mortem was 24 hours. He has further stated that rigor mortis was present on all the four limbs. Rigor mortis to set in, takes two to three hours. It forms fully in the whole body in between 12 to 24 hours. It starts leaving the body after 24 hours and can take 24 to 36 hours to leave. Statement of Dr. Arun Garg (PW-15) corroborates the ocular account that the occurrence had taken place on 15.12.2002 some time after 11.00 a.m. It seems that the occurrence had taken place some time in the evening when it was dark. Forceful sodomy could not have been committed on Jai Pal during the day time, as the Bhandara was taking place and a lot of persons had come, from neighbouring villages. From the medical evidence, it is clear that Jai Pal resisted, as his clothes were torn. If sodomy had been done at day time, some one would have been attracted by hearing the shouts of Jai Pal deceased. Appellant strangulated Jai Pal, as both belonged to the same village and knew each other. 24. Statement of Raj Pal (PW-5), the person who saw Jai Pal deceased and appellant Sandeep together, inspires confidence. If sodomy had been done at day time, some one would have been attracted by hearing the shouts of Jai Pal deceased. Appellant strangulated Jai Pal, as both belonged to the same village and knew each other. 24. Statement of Raj Pal (PW-5), the person who saw Jai Pal deceased and appellant Sandeep together, inspires confidence. After seeing the appellant and deceased together on 15.12.2002 at 11.00 a.m., this witness had to go to Sonepat to meet his sister, as he had received a telephonic message that his sister was not well. It was on the next day, i.e. 16.12.2002 that he came back and saw a gathering of persons standing in his village Cholka, where he disclosed that he had seen deceased Jai Pal and appellant Sandeep together, the previous day. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the extra judicial confession made before Om Kanwar (PW-4) does not inspire confidence. This very witness has also deposed in Criminal Appeal No. 963-DB of 2004 and had made a similar statement regarding an extra judicial confession having been made before him by appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon. He seems to be a stock witness of the police. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant does not cut much ice. In Criminal Appeal No. 963-DB of 2004, the extra judicial confession made by appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon regarding the murder of Rakesh has been made, after a gap of three years. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 15.12.2002 and the extra judicial confession was made on 20.12.2002. Appellant must have come to know that his name had figured in the First Information Report. He was identified by the complainant party and thus, he wanted to unload his conscience and thus, he confessed his guilt before Om Kanwar (PW-4). Om Kanwar (PW-4) in his testimony before the Court, has stated that appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon was known to Om Kanwar (PW-4) since his childhood. Appellants father was his class fellow. He has further stated that Station House Officer Ram Kishan, the Investigating Officer (PW-12) was known to him and after the confessional statement, Ex. PD, was made to him on 20.12.2002 at 1.00 p.m. and thereafter about half an hour, he took appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon to be produced before the police, but the police met him at about 1.30 p.m. on the way. 26. PD, was made to him on 20.12.2002 at 1.00 p.m. and thereafter about half an hour, he took appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon to be produced before the police, but the police met him at about 1.30 p.m. on the way. 26. Ram Kishan, Sub-Inspector (PW-12), the Investigating Officer has stated in his testimony before the Court that he lifted footprints moulds from the spot through memo Ex. PO/1. Foot moulds collected from the place of occurrence and compared with the foot moulds of the appellant have been found to be similar. This vital piece of evidence goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. Vide report, Ex. PE, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal, has stated that all the footprints found from the place of occurrence and the footprints of the appellant match each other. Shri Sudhir Parmar, Judicial Magistrate I Class (PW-17) has stated in his testimony that the test moulds were taken on his direction on an application, Ex. PO, made by Ram Kishan, Sub-Inspector (PW-15) the Investigating Officer and his order is Ex. PR. Footprint moulds were taken in his presence. 27. On the disclosure Statement, Ex. PD, made by the appellant, the Investigating Officer demarcated the place of occurrence and had the underwear of deceased Jai Pal recovered. Recovery memo Ex. PD/2 was prepared. 28. In State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Rams case (supra), their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court have held in para 34 of their judgment, which is reproduced as under :- "The following questions may be asked and answered as a test to determine the "rarest of rare" case in which death sentence can be inflicted : (a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence ? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender ? (SCC p. 489, para 39). The following guidelines which emerge from Bachans Singh case will have to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposition of death sentence arises: (i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. (SCC p. 489, para 39). The following guidelines which emerge from Bachans Singh case will have to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposition of death sentence arises: (i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. (ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the "offender" also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the "crime". (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. (iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. (SCC p. 489, page 38) In rarest of rare cases when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstances : (1) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (SCC pp. 487-88, paras 32-33) (2) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. Murder by hired assassin for money or reward or a cold- blooded murder for gains of a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust, or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland. (SCC p. 488, para 34) (3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc. (SCC p. 488, para 34) (3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc. is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of "bride burning" or "dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation. (SCC p. 488, para 35) (4) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. (SCC p. 488, para 36) (5) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or an old or infirm person or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community. (SCC pp. 488-89, para 37) If the upon taking an over all global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid propositions and taking into account the answers to the questions posed by way of the test for the rarest of rare cases, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the Court would proceed to do so. (SCC p. 489, para 40)." 29. After taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that the case of the appellant does not fall within the parameters of rarest of rare cases. Learned counsel for the State has heavily relied upon the conviction of appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon in Criminal Appeal No. 963-DB of 2004 by the trial Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 963-DB of 2004, we have acquitted appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon for lack of evidence and have given him the benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the State has also argued that in another case, FIR No. 171 dated 23.8.2001, in which challan under Section173, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been presented and the trial is proceeding, Copy of challan is Ex. PY. Ex. PY also cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, as we do not know, as to what would be the final outcome in that case. 30. PY. Ex. PY also cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, as we do not know, as to what would be the final outcome in that case. 30. Prosecution, though has brought on record ample evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, in the naming of appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon in the First Information Report, last seen evidence and extra judicial confession. 31. Murder Reference No. 8 of 2004 is declined. Conviction of the appellant is maintained. Appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant is further convicted under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Appellant is further convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default thereof, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. All the sentences awarded to appellant Sandeep @ Kartoon shall run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 962-DB of 2004 is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.