Delhi District CourtState vs . 1. Ram Udagar on 5 August, 20151
                                                            FIR No. 164/11
                                                               PS - Alipur



      IN THE COURT OF SH. MAHESH CHANDER GUPTA : 
     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SPECIAL FAST TRACK 
      COURT : NORTH­WEST DISTRICT : ROHINI : DELHI

SESSIONS CASE NO. :  64/13
Unique ID No.     :   02404R0225842011

State         Vs.             1.  Ram Udagar
                                   S/o Siya Ram @ Siya
                                   R/o PS - Bahari,
                                   Darbhanga, Bihar.
                        Also at :
                                   Dharam Pal Ka Makan,
                                   Shiv Mandir, Alipur,
                                   Delhi.

                              2.  Smt. Sukhia
                                   S/o Ram Udagar
                                   R/o Village Simda,
                                   PS - Bahari Darbhanga,
                                   Bihar.
                        Also at :
                                   Dharam Pal Ka Makan,
                                   Shiv Mandir, Alipur,
                                   Delhi.




                                                                1 of  10
                                             2
                                                                              FIR No. 164/11
                                                                                 PS - Alipur



                                           3.  Tej Narain @ Narain
                                                S/o Anirudh Yadav
                                                R/o Village Barhai,
                                                PO - Eikha, Shiv Nagar,
                                                PS - Birol,
                                                District - Darbhanga, Bihar.

FIR No.         :  164/11
Police Station  :  Alipur
Under Sections  :  376(2)(f)/363/365/34IPCORDER ON SENTENCE :

1.Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 01/08/2015 accused 

Ram   Udagar   and   Smt.   Sukhiya   have   been   convicted   for   the   offences 

punishableu/s 363/365/34IPC.  Accused Ram Udagar, Smt. Sukhiya and Tej 

Narain @ Narain have been convicted for the offence punishableu/s 366r/wsection 109IPC.  Accused Tej Narain @ Narain and Ram Udagar have also 

been convicted for the offence punishableu/s 376 (2)(f)IPC.  Accused Ram 

Udagar  has   also   been   convicted   for   the   offence   punishable   u/s  506IPC. 

Accused Smt. Sukhiya has also been convicted for the offence punishableu/s 

506IPC.2 of  103FIR No. 164/11PS - Alipur2.             Ms. Geeta Singh Chauhan, Learned Amicus Curiae for convicts 

Ram   Udagar   and   Smt.   Sukhiya   submitted   that   convict   Ram   Udagar   and 

Convict Smt. Sukhiya are the husband and wife.  She further submitted that 

convict Ram Udagar is about 55 years of age and was doing the Labour Work 

(Mazdoori) and is the sole bread earner in the family.  Convict Smt. Sukhiya 

is about 45 years of age and is a Housewife.  She further submitted that they 

have four children which consists of one son, aged about 14 years and three 

daughters, aged about 10, 11 and 16 years and the children are living in the 

Children   Home.     She   further   submitted   that   they   are  running   in  Judicial 

Custody (JC) since 25/05/2011 and are not involved in any other case and are 

having clean antecedents and are not the previous convicts and their conduct 

during   the   trial   was   very   co­operative   and   they   are   the   victim   of   the 

circumstances and prayed for leniency.3.             Shri   Yashwant   Yadav,   Learned   Counsel   for   the   convict   Tej 

Narain @ Narain submitted that convict Tej Narain @ Narain is 23 years of 

age.  He was working as a Driver.  He further submitted that he is having a 

family which consists of his wife who is a household lady, one son, aged 

about five years and the aged parents.   He is the sole bread earner in the 



                                                                                      3 of  104FIR No. 164/11PS - Alipur



family.   He further submitted that he is having one brother who is married 

and lives separately.  He further submitted that he is having two sisters who 

have since been married off.   He further submitted that he is running in 

Judicial Custody (JC) since 29/08/2011 and is not involved in any other case 

and is having clean antecedents and is not a previous convict and his conduct 

during   the   trial   was   very   co­operative   and   he   is   the   victim   of   the 

circumstances and prayed for leniency.4.            On the other hand, Ms. V. K. Negi, Learned Addl. PP for State 

submitted that seeing the gravity of the offences, the convicts be dealt with 

strictly and severest punishment be given to deter them from committing the 

same offences in future and no leniency be shown to them.5.            I have heard the Learned Addl. PP for the State and the Learned 

Counsel   for   the   convicts   Ram   Udagar,   Smt.   Sukhiya   and   Tej   Narain   @ 

Narain on the quantum of sentence at length.  That on 09/05/2011 at about 

8:00 a.m., convict Ram Udagar and convict Smt. Sukhiya in furtherance of 

their common intention kidnapped the prosecutrix, aged around 09 years (to 

be exact 09 years, 01 month and 08 days) playing outside her house at Bada 



                                                                                   4 of  105FIR No. 164/11PS - Alipur



Shiv Mandir, Alipur, Delhi, with the intention of secretly and wrongfully 

confining the prosecutrix and after kidnapping the prosecutrix kept her at 

their house and that in the nights convict Ram Udagar committed rape upon 

her   (PW4   -   prosecutrix)   many   times   at   his   house   and   that   thereafter   in 

furtherance   of   their   common   intention   convict   Smt.   Sukhia   abetted   the 

convict Tej Narain @ Narain to take the prosecutrix with him at his house 

situated   in   their   native   village   at   Bihar   knowing   it   to   be   likely   that 

prosecutrix will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and that convict 

Tej Narain @ Narain after taking the prosecutrix at his house situated in the 

native village of convict Ram Udagar and convict Smt. Sukhiya, at Bihar, he 

forcibly committed rape upon the prosecutrix in the day time as well as in the 

night time, for three days and that thereafter convict Ram Udagar and convict 

Smt. Sukhiya came in the village in Bihar and brought prosecutrix back to 

their house in Bihar, from the house of convict Tej Narain @ Narain and 

thereafter convict Ram Udagar took her (prosecutrix) in the field and forcibly 

committed rape upon her and he also threatened her not to disclose about the 

incident of rape to anyone and when prosecutrix narrated all the facts of 

incident of rape upon her, to convict Smt. Sukhiya, she also threatened her 

not to disclose the same to anyone.5 of  106FIR No. 164/11PS - Alipur6.            It has been held by the  Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahdev Vs. 

Jaibar @ Jai Dev & Ors. 2009 V AD (S.C.) 515 that :­ 

             "After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances 
of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an 
offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a 
crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really 
relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court.  Such act of 
balancing is indeed a difficult task".7.            It has been held in'State of Karnataka Vs. Murlidhar', 2009 

IV AD (S.C.) 1 that :­

                "The object should be to protect the society and to deter the 
criminal   in   achieving   the   avowed   object   of   law   by   imposing   appropriate 
sentence.  It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system 
so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society 
and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The court will 
be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime 
which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also 
against the society to which the criminal and victim belong.  The punishment 
to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and 
be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been 
perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it 
should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal".6 of  107FIR No. 164/11PS - Alipur8.In'Mulla & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 

508,  after considering various earlier decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 

held as under :­

              "It   is   settled   legal   position   that   the   punishment   must   fit   the 
crime.   It is the duty of the Court to impose proper punishment depending 
upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. 
As  a  measure  of  social  necessity and also as a means of deterring other 
potential offenders, the sentence should be appropriate be fitting the crime".9.In'Pushpanjali Sahu Vs. State of Orissa', (2012) 9 SCC 705 

in para 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :­

              "Sexual violence is not only an unlawful invasion of the right of 
privacy and sanctity of a woman but also a serious blow to her honour.   It 
leaves a traumatic and humiliating impression on her conscience­offending 
her self­esteem and dignity.  Rape is not only a crime against the person of a 
woman, but a crime against the entire society.  It indelibly leaves a scar on 
the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour reputation 
and not the least her chastity.  It destroys the entire psychology of a woman 
and pushes her into deep emotional crisis.  It is crime against basic human 
rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the fundamental 
rights, namely the right of life contained inArticle 21of the Constitution. 
The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against 
women with utmost sensitivity.  Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and 
severely" (Para 12).7 of  108FIR No. 164/11PS - Alipur10.InMadan   Gopal   Kakkad   Vs.   Naval   Dubey   and   another(1992) 3 SCC 204, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :­

              "...though all sexual assaults on female children are not reported 
and do not come to light yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of 
sexual   offences   committed   on   children.     This   is   due   to   the   reasons   that 
children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer resistance 
and   becomes   easy   prey   for   lusty   brutes   who   display   the   unscrupulous, 
deceitful   and   insidious   art   of   luring   female   children   and   young   girls. 
Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilized society should be 
mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms."11.            Having   regard   to   all   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case 

coupled   with   the   submissions   made   on   behalf   of   the   convicts  and   after 

delicately   balancing   and   giving   due   consideration   to   the   facts   and 

circumstances, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in 

which the offences had been committed, I am  of  the  considered  opinion 

that the ends of justice can be met by sentencing convicts Ram Udagar and 

Smt. Sukhiya to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years 

each   and   to  pay   a  fine  of   Rs. 10,000/­  each in default  thereof  to further 

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year eachu/s  363/34IPC.     Convicts  Ram   Udagar   and   Smt.   Sukhiya   are   further   sentenced  to 

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a 


                                                                                       8 of  109FIR No. 164/11PS - Alipur



fine   of   Rs.   10,000/­   each   in   default   thereof   to   further   undergo   Rigorous 

Imprisonment for a period of one year eachu/s 365/34IPC.  Convicts Ram 

Udagar, Smt. Sukhiya and Tej Narain @ Narain are  sentenced to undergo 

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of 

Rs.   10,000/­   each   in   default   thereof   to   further   undergo   Rigorous 

Imprisonment for a period of one year eachu/s 366r/wSection 109IPC. 

Convict  Tej   Narain   @   Narain  is   further   sentenced   to   undergo   Rigorous 

Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/­ in 

default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two 

yearsu/s 376(2)(f)IPC.  Convict Ram Udagar is further sentenced to undergo 

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 

15,000/­ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a 

period   of   two   years   u/s   376(2)(f)IPC.     Convict   Ram   Udagar   is   further 

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and 

to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ in default thereof to further undergo Rigorous 

Imprisonment for a period of six monthsu/s 506IPC.  Convict Smt. Sukhiya 

is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two 

years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ in default thereof to further undergo 

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six monthsu/s 506IPC.   All the 



                                                                                       9 of  1010FIR No. 164/11PS - Alipur



substantive sentences shall run concurrently.  The period already undergone 

by the convicts Ram Udagar, Smt. Sukhiya and Tej Narain @ Narain during 

the inquiry/investigation/trial of this case shall be set off under section 428 

Cr.P.C.A copy of judgment as well as that of order on sentence be given 

to the convicts free of costs.Announced in the open Court                           (MAHESH CHANDER  GUPTA)
on 05th Day of August, 2015                       Additional Sessions Judge
                                                             Special Fast Track Court
                                                          (N/W District), Rohini, Delhi




                                                                               10 of  10