LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-16

NEERAJ SAFI Vs. STATE

Decided On October 04, 2018
Neeraj Safi Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.200/14 (renumbered as 1204/16) arising out of FIR No.214/14 registered at Police Station ("PS") CR Park, New Delhi convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 21st February, 2017, whereby for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment ("RI") for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment ("SI") for one year; for the offence under Section 376 IPC, to undergo RI for ten years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for six months; and for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, to undergo RI for three years along with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months.

(2.) The background facts of the case are that the Appellant was employed as a domestic help of the deceased, who lived alone in the ground floor of her house at Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. The Appellant was employed with the deceased by the daughter of the deceased, who lived abroad, and who owned the ground floor. The Appellant lived in a separate servant quarter, which was situated in the parking area of the building.

(3.) The first floor was owned by another daughter of the deceased, who herself lived with her husband (PW-2) and family at Press Enclave, Saket, New Delhi. The front portion of the third floor, owned by the deceased, had been given on rent to a company which employed a security guard at the gate of the building. The duty hours of the security guard were from 8 pm to 8 am. The second floor of the building was given to the builder. It must be mentioned here that the deceased was the owner of the entire property which was demolished and reconstructed by a builder on collaboration.