Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2216 (DEL)

Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah v. State (NCT of Delhi)

2013-11-19

S.P.GARG

body2013
JUDGMENT : S.P. Garg, J.:- 1. The appellant (Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah) impugns a judgment dated 21.03.2002 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 3/2001 arising out of FIR No. 138/2000 registered at Police Station Chandni Mahal holding him guilty for the offences under Sections 367/377/506/342/34 IPC. By an order dated 01.04.2002, he was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine Rs. 1,000/- under Section 367 IIPC; five years with fine with fine Rs. 5000/- under Section 377 IPC; one year with fine Rs. 500/- under Section 342 IPC and two years with fine Rs. 1,000/- under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were to operate concurrently. 2. Allegations against the appellant and his companion Imran were that on the night intervening 24/25-08-2000, they in furtherance of common intention abducted Mohd. Siraj at around 12.00 night; committed sodomy; criminally intimidated and wrongfully confined him. The victim reported the incident to the police without delay and after recording his statement (Ex.PW-1/A) First Information Report was lodged in the morning hours on 25.08.2000. The victim was medically examined. Both Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah and Imran were arrested. Pursuant to their disclosure statements, knives used in the crime were recovered. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both the assailants and they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. The defence examined R.K.Mehrotra, working as Manager with Delite Cinema as DW-1. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the submissions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held both of them guilty for the offences mentioned previously. It is relevant to note that Imran challenged the impugned judgment in Crl.A.No. 374/2002 which was disposed of by this Court on 24.04.2009. Imran was able to convince that on the day of incident he was juvenile and had not completed the age of 18 years. While maintaining conviction for the above mentioned offences, substantive sentence was quashed on that score. 3. During arguments, appellant’s counsel on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellant Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. She prayed to release him for the period already undergone by him in custody which is about three years. 4. I have considered the submissions. 3. During arguments, appellant’s counsel on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellant Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. She prayed to release him for the period already undergone by him in custody which is about three years. 4. I have considered the submissions. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings for the above mentioned offences recorded by the Trial Court and the prosecution had produced overwhelming evidence of the complainant (as PW-1) coupled with medical evidence, the findings on conviction are affirmed/confirmed. The victim was minor aged 16 years on the day of occurrence. The assailants committed sodomy on his person using knives and putting him in fear. They abducted him to a secluded place voluntarily and had carnal intercourse against the order of nature without his consent and against his wishes. The assailants were armed with deadly weapons and were under the influence of liquor that time at odd hours. The act was pre-planned and deliberate with an intention to satisfy lust. The assailants took turns to ravish the child and caused injuries on his body. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a victim. It offends his/her self-esteem and dignity- it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. Thus, leniency in matters involving sexual offences is undesirable and against public interest. The appellant’s crime is the result of a perverse mind. Nominal roll dated 02.08.2010 reveals that the appellant Gulfam @ Ghoda Shah was involved in another FIR No. 370/1999 under Section 377/506 IPC registered at Police Station Darya Ganj. Outcome of the said criminal case is unclear. The appellant indulged in similar offence subsequently in the present case vide FIR No. 138/2000 registered at Police Station Chandni Mohalla. Mohd. Gulfam was aged about 21 years on the day of incident and had associated Imran, a minor, in committing the crime. Considering these facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to modify the sentence order. The appeal is unmerited. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are maintained and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial court on 26.11.2013 to serve the remaining period of sentence. Considering these facts and circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to modify the sentence order. The appeal is unmerited. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are maintained and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial court on 26.11.2013 to serve the remaining period of sentence. The Registry shall transmit the Trial Court records forthwith.