{"id":57747,"date":"2000-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000"},"modified":"2019-01-23T03:18:31","modified_gmt":"2019-01-22T21:48:31","slug":"state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000<\/div>\n
Bench: K.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1119-1120 1998\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE, GOVT.  OF NCT OF DELHI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUNIL AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      THOMAS,  J.   Two sex maniacs libidinously  ravaged  a
\ntiny  female  tot  like wild beasts and\t finished  her\toff.
\nPolice\tafter  investigation found that the two\t respondents
\nherein\tare  those two fiends.\tA Sessions Court upheld\t the
\nsaid police version as correct.\t He sentenced one of them to
\ndeath  penalty\tand  the other to life imprisonment,  but  a
\nDivision  Bench\t of  the  High Court of\t Delhi\tdeclined  to
\nbelieve\t the police version as true and consequently the two
\nrespondents  were acquitted.  This appeal by the State is by
\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n
      The  little  girl was Anuradha and she was  aged\tonly
\nfour.\tShe was fondly taken away from her mothers house on
\nthe forenoon of 5.9.1992.  Her dead body was taken up by her
\nmother\ton  the same night from the house of  first  accused
\nSunil.\t When the doctor conducted autopsy on the dead\tbody
\nhe  described  the  dimensions of the imprints left  in\t the
\ninfantile  body\t reflecting  a horrible\t sexual\t molestation
\ninflicted  on  the child.  Next day the police arrested\t the
\ntwo  accused  (A1-Sunil and A2-Ramesh) and after  completing
\nthe  investigation charge-sheeted both of them for  offences
\nunder Sections 364, 376, 377 and 302 read with Section 34 of
\nthe  Indian Penal Code.\t After the trial the sessions  court
\nconvicted  both\t of them under all the aforesaid counts\t and
\nsentenced  A2  Ramesh to death and A1 Sunil to\timprisonment
\nfor  life  on  the  charge  of\tmurder\tand  awarded  lesser
\nsentences for the remaining counts.\n<\/p>\n
      Details  of  the prosecution case are  the  following:
\nAnuradhas  mother  Sharda (PW10) was known to A1 Sunil\tand
\nhis  mother (Giano Devi).  Sharda had stayed in the house of
\nGiano  Devi  for  a few days and their\tacquaintance  became
\ncloser.\t  Sharda  was working in a tube-light  manufacturing
\nfactory during those days.  As she needed a place to live in
\nGiano  Devi arranged a small hutment (Jhuggi) with the\thelp
\nof  another  lady (PW8 Tara) who was residing close-by.\t  On
\nthe  occurrence\t day  Sharda went to the  factory  for\twork
\nleaving\t her child Anuradha in the custody of PW8-Tara.\t  At
\nabout  11 A.M.\tSunil visited them and expressed to PW8-Tara
\nthat he would take the child and her clothes as well as some
\ndomestic  utensils to PW10.  Though PW8 suggested that\tthis
\nshould\tbe  done only if Sharda permits, A1-Sunil  took\t the
\nchild and her clothes and the utensils from his house during
\na short time when PW8-Tara had gone out to fetch milk.\tWhen
\nshe came home in the night she learnt from PW8-Tara that her
\nchild  was  taken  away by Sunil.  So she  went\t to  Sunils
\nhouse.\t It  was about 9.00 P.M.  then.\t To her\t dismay\t she
\nfound  her  little  child  lying  completely  nude  next  to
\nA2-Ramesh,  on\tthe second floor of the house, who was\tthen
\ndeep  in  his  sleep.\tThen  Sunil, who  was  found  in  an
\ninebriated  mood,  hurled a remark that I  have\t dispatched
\nAnuradha  to  heaven. She felt concerned as to\twhat  would
\nhave  happened to the child.  It was then she realised\tthat
\nher  child was breathless.  PW10- Sharda then took the child
\nto  the hospital, but the doctor who examined her pronounced
\nher dead.\n<\/p>\n
      PW1  –  Dr.  Basant Lal conducted the autopsy  on\t the
\ndead  body  of the child at 12.00 noon on 7.9.1992.  In\t his
\nopinion the child would have died about 36 to 48 hours prior
\nto  the\t autopsy.  He gave full details in  his\t post-mortem
\nreport\tabout the features noticed by him on the dead  body.
\nThe  corpse  was  full\tof abrasions  and  contusions.\t The
\nprominent  among  them were counted by the doctor as  25  in
\nnumber\tand he described the situs and dimensions of all  of
\nthem.\tAmong them, oval fashioned multiple abrasions on the
\nleft  cheek  appeared to him as marks of biting.   Both\t the
\nupper  and  lower lips of the child were bruised  violently.
\nMarks  of violent handling of both the thighs, lower abdomen
\nand  pubic  region  are also described by the  doctor.\t The
\nvaginal\t orifice is described by the doctor in his report as
\nfollows:   Labia majora and minora swollen and reddish blue
\nin  colour.  Vaginal orifice dilated and blood is coming out
\nof  it.\t Right labia minora showing tears 1.6 x 0.1 cm.\t and
\non  left side labia minora showing tear in an area of 1.5  x
\n0.2 cm in vertical plane.  Labia majora showing contusion on
\nboth sides in an area of 3 x 2 cm each.\n<\/p>\n
      About  hymen  the\t doctor described  thus:   Hymen
\nshowing\t tear  at 5 and 6 Oclock position which\t was  going
\nupto  the vaginal wall and triangular in shape in an area of
\n1.5  x 1 x 1 cm.  There were tears on the sides and back  of
\nurethra\t opening upto hymen in an area of 1.4 x 1.2 cm.\t  in
\ntriangular fashion.\n<\/p>\n
      About the anus the doctor described as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      Dilated and blood was coming out of it.  The diameter
\nwas  1.5  cm.\tThe  area around  the  orifice\twas  showing
\nswelling with reddish contusion in an area of 2 cm.\n<\/p>\n
      DR.   Basant Lal (PW-1) further noted that the vaginal
\norifice\t was so badly mutilated that one middle finger could
\nbe  easily admitted into it.  Even the tongue was not spared
\nin that violence as the doctor found its position like this:\n<\/p>\n
      The tongue was showing abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm.  on its
\nfront  right  outer aspect with contusion  around.   Reddish
\nbluish in colour  Bite mark.\n<\/p>\n
      During examination of the head of the body PW1 noticed
\nthick  layered bluish-reddish effusion of blood on the right
\ntemporal  parietal region.  Though there was no fracture  of
\nthe  skull the duramater on the left side looked bluish, and
\nthere  was thick subdural haemotoma in an area of  20x10x0.8
\ncm.    and  one\t fist  full   clotted  blood,\tand   patchy
\nsubarachnoid  haemorrage all over the brain which were\talso
\nnoticed by the doctor.\n<\/p>\n
      From  the\t woeful and eerie features described by\t the
\ndoctor\tno  court could possibly escape from the  conclusion
\nthat  the  little  child was violently\tmolested,  ravished,
\nraped  and sodomised besides penile penetration having\tbeen
\nmade  into her mouth.  The remnants of extensive mangling of
\nthe  tender body of the child would reflect the\t possibility
\nof  more than one rapist subjecting the child to such beasty
\nravishment.\n<\/p>\n
      Though  the Sessions Court acted on the above  medical
\nreport as reliable it is unfortunate that the Division Bench
\nof  the High Court expressed misgivings about it.  The\tonly
\nbasis  for  entertaining doubt about the correctness of\t the
\nfindings recorded by PW1  Dr.  Basant Lal was that when the
\ndeceased  was  first  examined by one Dr.  Gajrat  Singh  at
\n11.40  P.M.  on 5.9.1992 he noted only multiple bruises all
\nover  the body in Ext.PW11\/1 MLC(Medico Legal Certificate).
\nIt  was\t the said doctor who pronounced the girl  dead.\t  He
\nmade  the above entry in the MLC.  It must be noted that Dr.
\nGajrat\tSingh  was not examined as a witness in\t the  court.
\nApparently  that  doctor  was  not  disposed  to  conduct  a
\ndetailed  examination on the dead body either because he was
\npretty\tsure that the body would be subjected to a  detailed
\nautopsy\t or because the doctor himself was in a great hurry.
\nWhatever  be the reason, no court could afford to ignore the
\nreport\tof  the\t doctor\t who   conducted  the  autopsy\twith
\nmeticulous  precision about all the features noticed, merely
\non  the strength of what another doctor had scribbled in the
\nMLC at the initial stage.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned  Judges of the High Court should have  noticed
\nthat  the  evidence  of PW1  Dr.  Basant Lal was  not  even
\ncontroverted by the defence as no question was put to him in
\ncross-examination  by  the defence counsel.   His  testimony
\nought  to  have been given due probative value\tparticularly
\nwhen nothing was shown to doubt the evidence of that medical
\npractitioner.\tLearned counsel for the respondents was\t not
\nable  to  pick\tout even a single answer from  his  evidence
\nwhich  could  at  least throw a modicum of doubt  about\t the
\ncorrectness  of\t his evidence.\tHence we have to proceed  on
\nthe  premise that whatever PW1\tDr.  Basant Lal – found\t on
\nthe dead body were the actual position noticed by him during
\nautopsy.   The\tSessions  Judge has  rightly  accepted\tthat
\nevidence and no exception can be taken thereto.\t Thus, it is
\nbeyond\tdoubt  that the little girl was raped and  sodomised
\nand  that  death was due to the injuries sustained  in\tthat
\nexercise.\n<\/p>\n
      When  the above premise is so certain the task of\t the
\ncourt  is  narrowed down to the limited area i.e., were\t the
\ntwo respondents the rapists or is there any reasonable scope
\nto think that somebody else would have done those acts.\n<\/p>\n
      The  trial  court\t came  to the  conclusion  that\t the
\nculprits  are  the  two\t respondents  and  none\t else.\t The
\nSessions  Judge\t found that prosecution has established\t the
\nfollowing  circumstances:  (1) Sunil (1st accused) had taken
\nthe  child  from  the house of PW8  Tara by about  noon\t on
\n5.9.1992.   (2) The child was recovered from the house of A1
\n  Sunil and she was then found breathless.  (3) That  child
\nwas  lying naked by the side of A2  Ramesh who was in  deep
\nsleep  when the mother of the child lifted her up.  (4) A1
\nSunil,\twho  was then in inebriated condition,\tblurted\t out
\nthat  Anuradha\twas sent to heaven.  (5)  The  blood-stained
\nnicker\tof Anuradha was later recovered from the house of A2
\n Ramesh on the basis of a statement given to the police.\n<\/p>\n
      The  trial  court concluded on the strength  of  those
\ncircumstances  that  both the respondents are liable  to  be
\nconvicted for murder, rape and unnatural offence, while A1
\nSunil  is  additionally liable for kidnapping the child\t for
\nmurder.\t  Accordingly  the  trial court convicted  both\t the
\nrespondents and sentenced them as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
      Regarding\t the  first  circumstance that it was  A1
\nSunil  who  took  the  child from the care of  PW8    Tara,
\nprosecution has examined PW8  Tara and her neighbour PW12 –
\nDariba\tbesides\t the evidence of PW10  Sharda.\tPW8   Tara
\nsaid  that she knew both the accused since they used to stay
\nin  the house of Sharda for some days earlier.\tAccording to
\nPW8    Tara,  the child and her mother had  stayed  in\ther
\nJhuggi\tfor  a few days and on the date of occurrence  A1
\nSunil  visited\tthe Jhuggi at 11 A.M.  and requested her  to
\nlet  the  child Anuradha be taken with him along  with\tsome
\nutensils  and  clothes.\t The suggestion was that he  had  to
\ntake  the child to the factory where Sharda was working.  It
\nappears\t that PW8  Tara was reluctant to allow him to  take
\nthe child presumably because she did not know whether Sharda
\nherself\t wanted\t the  child  then.   But  during  the  short
\ninterval  when she went out of the house for purchasing milk
\nA1    Sunil had taken away the child.  As she did not  know
\nwhere  Sharda was working and as the child was taken away by
\nA1   Sunil who was familiar to Sharda no immediate step was
\ntaken  by  PW8\t  Tara and she chose to\t wait  till  Sharda
\nreturned.\n<\/p>\n
      The  above evidence of PW8  Tara is to be appreciated
\nin  the light of what PW10  Sharda herself had said.   PW10
\ndeposed\t that she was quite familiar with A1  Sunil and she
\nand  the  child had stayed at Sunils house for a  few  days
\nsometime  back.\t  PW10\thas  stated  that  on  the  date  of
\noccurrence  when  she returned to Taras house she was  told
\nthat  Sunil  had  taken the child away by saying  that\tPW10
\nwould  take  the  child back in the  evening.\tShe  further
\ndeposed that she went to A1s house at 9.30 P.M.\t along with
\nPW8    Tara and PW12  Dariba and collected the child  from
\nthat  house and the child was then lying next to A2  Ramesh
\nwho  too  was  then  sleeping.\t As  the  child\t was   found
\nbreathless  and\t in view of the comment blurted out by A1
\nSunil, she rushed the child to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Division  Bench  of\t the  High  Court  expressed
\ndifficulty  to\tbelieve the said version of the\t prosecution
\ni.e.   A1 Sunil had taken away the child from the Jhuggi  of
\nPW8  Tara.   The reasons of the High Court for it are:\t (1)
\nThere  was  no\tneed for A1 Sunil to take  the\tclothes\t and
\nutensils  even if he wanted to take the child to its  mother
\nSharda.\t  (2) There is nothing to indicate that PW10  Sharda
\nmade  any  enquiry about the clothes and utensils.  (3)\t PW8
\nTara  could  not explain as to what she understood  when  A1
\nSunil  wanted  to take away the child with him.\t (4)  Nobody
\nfrom  the neighbourhood of Tara was examined to\t corroborate
\nher   evidence.\t  (5)  The  testimony\tof  PW8\t  Tara\t was
\ncontradictory with the evidence of PW10 Sharda.\n<\/p>\n
      We  perused the evidence of PW8-Tara, PW10-Sharda\t and
\ntheir  neighbour PW12-Dariba.  True, there are discrepancies
\nbetween\t the evidence of those three witnesses, but we\thave
\nnot   come   across  any   discrepancy\tworth  quoting\t for
\nconsideration  as  they are immaterial.\t Such  discrepancies
\nare  common features in the testimony of any two  witnesses.
\nIt  was too much of a strain for the judicial mind to ferret
\nout  some  minor discrepancies as between the  testimony  of
\nthose  three witnesses.\t Even the other reasons advanced  by
\nthe  Division  Bench of the High Court are ex facie  puerile
\nand   evidence\tgiven  on  oath\t  by  the  bereaved   mother
\nPW10-Sharda  and  her  other associate PW8-Tara,  cannot  be
\njettisoned  on such insignificant reasons.  In our view\t the
\nHigh Court ought not to have sidelined the evidence of those
\nthree witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
      The  circumstance\t relating  to the  recovery  of\t the
\nbloodstained  nicker is a formidable one.  But the  Division
\nBench  did  not\t attach any importance to it solely  on\t the
\nground\tthat  the  seizure  memo was  not  attested  by\t any
\nindependent witness.  Here the circumstance is that when A2-
\nRamesh\twas  interrogated by PW17-Investigating\t Officer  he
\nsaid:  Her underwear is in my house and I can point out the
\nplace  where  it is. Pursuant to the said  information\tthe
\npolice recovered the nicker from the house of A2-Ramesh.  It
\nwas  identified by PW10-Sharda as her childs nicker.   When
\nthe  nicker  was subjected to chemical test it was  revealed
\nthat  the under-cloth of the child was stained with blood of
\nO  group  (same is the blood group of Anuradha).   The\tsaid
\nstatement  of  A2-Ramesh  would fall within the\t purview  of
\nSection\t 27  of the Evidence Act as the fact discovered\t was
\nthat  the  nicker  of the deceased was in the house  of\t A2-
\nRamesh.\t  The  presumption which can be drawn  therefrom  is
\nthat  it  was A2 who removed the nicker and kept it  in\t his
\nhouse.\t A2  had  no explanation to be\toffered\t about\tthat
\ncircumstance.\n<\/p>\n
      Recovery\tof  the nicker is evidenced by\tthe  seizure
\nmemo  Ext.PW-10\/G.  It was signed by PW10-Sharda besides its
\nauthor\tPW17-Investigating  Officer.  The Division Bench  of
\nthe  High  Court  declined to place any weight on  the\tsaid
\ncircumstance  purely on the ground that no other independent
\nwitness\t had  signed  the  memo but it was  signed  only  by
\nhighly\tinterested  persons.   The   observation  of   the
\nDivision Bench in that regard is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
      It  need\thardly\tbe  said  that\tin  order  to  lend
\nassurance that the investigation has been proceeding in fair
\nand   honest  manner,  it  would   be  necessary   for\t the
\nInvestigating  Officer to take independent witnesses to\t the
\ndiscovery  under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act;\t and
\nwithout\t taking\t independent  witnesses\t and  taking  highly
\ninterested  persons and the police officers as the witnesses
\nto  the discovery would render the discovery, at least,\t not
\nfree from doubt.\n<\/p>\n
      In  this\tcontext\t we may point out that there  is  no
\nrequirement  either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act  or
\nunder  Section\t161  of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,  to
\nobtain\tsignature of independent witnesses on the record  in
\nwhich  statement  of  an  accused  is  written.\t  The  legal
\nobligation  to call independent and respectable\t inhabitants
\nof  the locality to attend and witness the exercise made  by
\nthe  police is cast on the police officer when searches\t are
\nmade  under Chapter VII of the Code.  Section 100(5) of\t the
\nCode  requires\tthat  such  search shall be  made  in  their
\npresence  and  a list of all things seized in the course  of
\nsuch search and of the places in which they are respectively
\nfound,\tshall  be prepared by such officer or  other  person
\nand  signed by such witnesses.\tIt must be remembered that
\nsearch\tis  made to find out a thing or document  which\t the
\nsearching  officer  has\t no prior idea where  the  thing  or
\ndocument  is  kept.  He prowls for it either  on  reasonable
\nsuspicion  or  on some guess work that it could possibly  be
\nferreted  out in such prowling.\t It is a stark reality\tthat
\nduring searches the team which conducts search would have to
\nmeddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in
\nsuch  process many such articles or documents are likely  to
\nbe displaced or even strewn helter-skelter.  The legislative
\nidea  in  insisting  on\t such searches to  be  made  in\t the
\npresence  of two independent inhabitants of the locality  is
\nto  ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with\t and
\nto  protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto.\t But
\nrecovery  of an object pursuant to the information  supplied
\nby  an\taccused in custody is different from  the  searching
\nendeavour  envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code.  This Court
\nhas  indicated\tthe difference between the two processes  in
\nthe Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr.
\nvs.   S.   Sardar  Ali & ors.  (1983  SC  1225).   Following
\nobservations  of Chinnappa Reddy, J.  can be used to support
\nthe  said  legal proposition:  Section 100 of the  Criminal
\nProcedure  Code\t to which reference was made by the  counsel
\ndeals with searches and not seizures.  In the very nature of
\nthings\twhen  property is seized and not recovered during  a
\nsearch,\t it is not possible to comply with the provisions of
\nsub-section  (4)  and  (5) of section 100  of  the  Criminal
\nProcedure  Code.  In the case of a seizure [under the  Motor
\nVehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of
\nthe  things  seized  in the course of the  seizure  for\t the
\nobvious\t reason\t that  all  those   things  are\t seized\t not
\nseparately but as part of the vehicle itself.\n<\/p>\n
      Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery
\nis  effected  pursuant to any statement made by the  accused
\nthe   document\tprepared  by   the   Investigating   Officer
\ncontemporaneous\t with  such  recovery  must  necessarily  be
\nattested  by independent witnesses.  Of course, if any\tsuch
\nstatement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the
\nInvestigating  Officer\tto take the signature of any  person
\npresent\t at  that  time, on the document prepared  for\tsuch
\nrecovery.  But if no witness was present or if no person had
\nagreed\tto  affix  his\tsignature on  the  document,  it  is
\ndifficult  to  lay down, as a proposition of law,  that\t the
\ndocument  so prepared by the police officer must be  treated
\nas  tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable.  The court
\nhas  to\t consider the evidence of the Investigating  Officer
\nwho  deposed to the fact of recovery based on the  statement
\nelicited from the accused on its own worth.\n<\/p>\n
      We  feel that it is an archaic notion that actions  of
\nthe  police  officer  should  be  approached  with   initial
\ndistrust.   We\tare  aware that such a notion  was  lavishly
\nentertained  during  British period and policemen also\tknew
\nabout  it.  Its hang over persisted during  post-independent
\nyears  but it is time now to start placing at least  initial
\ntrust  on the actions and the documents made by the  police.
\nAt  any\t rate, the court cannot start with  the\t presumption
\nthat the police records are untrustworthy.  As a proposition
\nof law the presumption should be the other way around.\tThat
\nofficial acts of the police have been regularly performed is
\na  wise principle of presumption and recognised even by\t the
\nlegislature.   Hence when a police officer gives evidence in
\ncourt  that  a certain article was recovered by him  on\t the
\nstrength  of the statement made by the accused it is open to
\nthe  court to believe the version to be correct if it is not
\notherwise  shown  to be unreliable.  It is for the  accused,
\nthrough\t cross-examination of witnesses or through any other
\nmaterials,  to show that the evidence of the police  officer
\nis  either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in
\na  particular  case.   If the court has any good  reason  to
\nsuspect\t the truthfulness of such records of the police\t the
\ncourt  could  certainly take into account the fact  that  no
\nother  independent  person  was\t present   at  the  time  of
\nrecovery.   But it is not a legally approvable procedure  to
\npresume\t the police action as unreliable to start with,\t nor
\nto  jettison  such action merely for the reason that  police
\ndid  not  collect signatures of independent persons  in\t the
\ndocuments made contemporaneous with such actions.\n<\/p>\n
      In  this case, the mere absence of independent witness
\nwhen PW17 recorded the statement of A2-Ramesh and the nicker
\nwas  recovered\tpursuant  to the said statement,  is  not  a
\nsufficient  ground to discard the evidence under Section  27
\nof the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
      Thus  on consideration of the entire evidence in\tthis
\ncase  we have no doubt that the trial court had come to\t the
\ncorrect conclusion that the two respondents were the rapists
\nwho  subjected\tAnuradha to such savagery  ravishment.\t The
\nDivision  Bench\t of  the  High Court has  grossly  erred  in
\ninterfering with such a correct conclusion made by the trial
\ncourt  as  the\treasons adopted by the High Court  for\tsuch
\ninterference  are very tenuous.\t Nonetheless it is difficult
\nto  enter  upon a finding that the respondents\tare  equally
\nguilty\tof murder of Anuradha.\tIn the opinion of PW1 doctor
\nthe  child died due to intracranial damage consequent  upon
\nsurface\t force\timpact to the head.  The said  opinion\twas
\nmade with reference to the subdural haemotoma which resulted
\nin  subarachnoid  haemorrage.  Such a  consequence  happened
\nduring\tthe  course of the violent ravishment  committed  by
\neither both or by one of the rapists without possibly having
\nany  intention\tor  even knowledge that their  action  would
\nproduce\t any  such  injury.   Even so,\tthe  rapists  cannot
\ndisclaim  knowledge  that the acts done by them on a  little
\ninfant\tof such a tender age were likely to cause its death.
\nHence  they  cannot  escape conviction from the\t offence  of
\nculpable homicide not amounting to murder.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the result, we set aside the impugned judgment  of
\nthe  High  Court.  We restore the conviction passed  by\t the
\ntrial  court under Section 376 and 377 read with Section  34
\nof the IPC.  The trial court awarded the maximum sentence to
\nthe respondents under the said counts i.e.  imprisonment for
\nlife.\tThe fact situation in this case does not justify any
\nreduction of that sentence.  We also convict the respondents
\nunder  Section 304 Part II, read with Section 34 of the\t IPC
\nthough it is unnecessary to award any sentence thereunder in
\nview of the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the
\nrespondents under the other two counts.\n<\/p>\n
      This appeal is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000 Bench: K.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1119-1120 1998 PETITIONER: STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. RESPONDENT: SUNIL AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/11\/2000 BENCH: K.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J. Two sex maniacs libidinously ravaged a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-22T21:48:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-22T21:48:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3856,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000\",\"name\":\"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-22T21:48:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-22T21:48:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-22T21:48:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000"},"wordCount":3856,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000","name":"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-22T21:48:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-vs-sunil-and-another-on-29-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Sunil And Another on 29 November, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}