SITA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of proceedings dated 04.06.2018, the nominal roll has been received from the Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar New Delhi indicating that the appellant has undergone the entire period of seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment and has also undergone the in default sentence of one year and three months of Rigorous Imprisonment for the non deposit of the composite sum of Rs.15, 000/- as imposed vide the impugned order on sentence dated 11.05.2005 and after having served the entire sentence with the sentence in lieu of fine, has been released from jail on 31.05.2010.

(2.) The appellant as per the impugned judgment is indicated to have been convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 342/368/373/376 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the ITPA and vide the impugned order on sentence dated 11.05.2005 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2, 000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months qua the offence punishable under Section 368/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and further sentenced qua the offence punishable under Section 373/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years, to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five months with the appellant having also been sentenced qua the offence punishable under Section 376/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years, to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000/- and in default of the payment of the fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five months with the appellant having also been sentenced qua the offence punishable under Section 3 of the I.T.P. Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs.1, 000/- and in default of the payment of the fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant is also vide the impugned order on sentence indicated to have been sentenced qua the offence punishable under Section 4 of the I.T.P. Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years qua the offence punishable under Section 5 of the I.T.P. Act with the appellant having also been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years, to pay a fine of Rs.1, 000/- and in default of the payment of the fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month with all the sentences having been directed to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C and the period of detention already undergone by the appellant be directed to be set off.

(3.) The appellant as per the nominal roll is indicated to have earned one year, four months and three days of remission. As per the impugned judgment there were three other co-accused in the instant case, i.e., Geeta, Sadhu Ram & Mishri Lal who have since been declared proclaimed offenders as per the charge of allegations framed against the appellant which inter alia indicates to the effect that the appellant one month prior to 25.08.2003 in furtherance of her common intention with the co-accused, i.e., the proclaimed offenders Geeta, Sadhu Ram & Mishri Lal purchased or otherwise obtained the possession of prosecutrix Ms. X under the age of 18 years with the intention that she at any stage be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful immoral purpose or knowing it to be likely that she will at any stage be employed or used for any such purpose and that in furtherance of the common intention with other co-accused, i.e., the proclaimed offenders had wrongly confined the prosecutrix, Ms.X apart from having caused hurt to her and had committed an offence under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.