STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SUNIL AND ANOTHER 2001 CRI LJ 504

 THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1119-1120 1998

PETITIONER: STATE GOVT.  OF NCT OF DELHI

RESPONDENT: SUNIL AND ANOTHER

BENCH: K. T. Thomas, R.P.Sethi

INTRODUCTION – The case of State Govt of Nct of Delhi vs. Sunil and another is one such case where heinous crime was foregrounded. Sexual abuse with brutal murder is a serious crime. In this case, Sunil Kumar and another; Ramesh, were held guilty of sexual abuse with a brutal murder of a young girl.

Two sex zealots lasciviously ravaged a tiny girl like wild beasts and finished her off. After investigation, the police found that the two sex maniacs are the culprits. A Sessions Court upheld the said police account as correct and thereafter, one of them was given death penalty and the other to life imprisonment term.

However, a Division Bench of the Delhi high court did not believe the police account as correct and consequently the two accused were acquitted. Permissibly, to oppose the acquittal, the state appealed this ruling of the high court and requested the special authority to take actions forward.

BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE:

A young girl named Anuradha, four years old, was taken away from her mother’s house with due care on September 5, 1992. On the night of the same day, her mother picked up her dead body from the house of first accused Sunil.

Thereafter, when the doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body, he described that the measurements of the traces left in the infantile’s body reflects a gruesome sexual molestation inflicted on the young girl.

Dr. Basant Lal, who, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the child at noon on 7 sept 1992. , described that the child have died about 36 to 48 hours prior to the autopsy. He provided full details in his post-mortem report about the structures noticed by him on the dead body. The body was full of abrasions, cuts and bruises. The prominent among them were calculated by the doctor as 25 in number. Further he well-defined the sites and dimensions of all of them. Among them, oval formed multiple abrasions on the left cheek seemed to him as bite marks. Both the upper and lower lips of the child were bruised viciously. Traces of violent handling of the thighs, lower abdomen and pubic region were also detailed by the doctor.

Following the next day, after investigation, the police arrested the two accused, Sunil and Ramesh, and charge-sheet was issued. Both of them were accused of offences under Sections 364, 376, 377 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

 The sessions court, after the trial, sentenced both of them under all the aforementioned counts and sentenced Ramesh to death and Sunil to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder.

ISSUES CONCERNED:

1. No court could afford to overlook the report of the doctor who directed the autopsy with thorough precision about all the features noticed, merely on the strength of what another doctor had illegibly jotted in the MLC at the initial stage.
2. Though the Sessions Court acted on the above medical report as reliable it is unfortunate that the Division Bench of the High Court articulated objections about it.
3. When the aforesaid premise is so certain, the court’s task is lessened down to the limited area i.e., were the two respondents – the rapists or is there any reasonable scope to think that somebody else would have done those acts.*[1].

JUDGEMENTS

The trial court came to the decision that the wrongdoers are the two respondents who were accused and none else.

The Sessions Judge found that prosecution has established the following circumstances: (1) Sunil (1st accused) had taken the child from the house of Tara by about noon on 5.9.1992. (2) The child was recovered from the house of Sunil and she was then found breathless. (3) That child was lying undressed, by the side of Ramesh who was in deep sleep when the mother of the child lifted her up. (4)  Sunil, who was then in inebriated condition, blurted out that Anuradha was sent to heaven. (5) The blood-stained nicker of Anuradha was later recovered from the house of Ramesh on the basis of a statement given to the police. **[2]

The trial court settled on the strength of those circumstances that both the respondents are legally responsible to be convicted for murder, rape and unnatural offence. Sunil is additionally liable for kidnapping the child for murder. Accordingly the trial court imprisoned both the respondents and sentenced them as aforementioned.

On consideration of the entire evidences found in this case, no doubt that the trial court had come to the precise judgment that the two respondents were the dreaded rapists who subjected Anuradha to such cruel ravishment.

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has grossly made a mistake in interfering with such a correct decision made by the trial court as the reasons adopted by the High Court for such intervention are questionable.

set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court,  the conviction was restored which was passed by the trial court under Section 376 and 377 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

 The trial court awarded extreme punishments possible, to the respondents under the said counts i.e. imprisonment for life and death penalty. Given the facts of the case, situation in this case does not validate any reduction of the sentence.

Though it is superfluous to grant any sentence thereunder in view of the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the accused, the respondents were also sentenced under Section 304 Part II, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appeal was disposed of consequently.

CONCLUSION

The heinous crime committed as is mentioned in the case of State govt of nct of Delhi vs. Sunil and another 2001 Cri LJ 504 is intolerable. Provisions regarding the rape issues with brutal murder should be amended more and enforced on a strong note .

Written by-Nandini Saikia intern under legal vidhiya

---

[1] Indian kanoon, State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs. Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81332/, last seen on 23/04/23.

[2] Ibid.