- (1.) This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the National Commission for Women (hereinafter called the 'Commission') statedly under the inherent powers of this Court challenging the order of the High Court dated 9th February, 2009, whereby the respondent No. 2 has been acquitted for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and while maintaining his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence has been reduced to that already undergone, which is said to be about five years and six months.
(2.) The facts are as under:
(3.) 1 Sunita then aged 21 years, committed suicide by consuming aluminium phosphide tablets on 14th April, 2003. A suicide note Ex. P.4 (G) found near her body was proved to be written in her hand. In the suicide note, she pointed out that she had taken tuitions from the accused, Amit, at her residence in Rajgarh Colony and during that period had developed a deep friendship with him leading to physical relations as well. He also held out a promise of marriage but later backed off and when she remonstrated with him and reminded him of his promise he threatened to expose and defame her in case she insisted on meeting him. She stated in the suicide note that the accused continued to have sexual relations with her but also compelled her to have sexual relations with others as well. Frustrated and feeling exploited, Sunita thus committed suicide. 2.2 The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, by his judgment dated 21st April, 2008, relying primarily on the dying declaration which was the suicide note, convicted the accused under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in addition, and to imprisonment for life under Section 376 of the IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; both the sentences to run concurrently. 2.3 An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the High Court. The High Court vide the impugned judgment held that a case under Section 306 was not made out and the accused was entitled to acquittal under that provision but on the question of the offence under Section 376 observed as under: We note that Sunita was aged 21 years and the appellant was aged 20 years when they indulged in a promiscuous relationship. At the age of 21, Sunita was matured enough to understand the moral worth of her acts. She was conscious that by having repeated sex with the appellant she could become pregnant and hence the appellant had told her to take Mala-D tablets. There is some participative act committed by Sunita. It is not a case where the appellant forced herself on Sunita. There is no evidence that the appellant compelled Sunita to have sex with the other person. We note that the Sunita has only written that the appellant was compelling her to have sex with a third person. She has not written that she was actually made to have sex with a third person. Considering the totality of the circumstances and noting that the appellant has suffered incarceration for five years and six months and would be entitled to remissions on account of his good conduct in jail; noting further that the appellant has redeemed himself in jail evidenced by the fact that he took his civilservices examinations and qualified for being appointed to the Indian Administrative Services; we are of the opinion that the custodial sentence already suffered by the appellant would meet the ends of justice as a requisite punishment. 2.4 An order reducing the term of imprisonment for life to that already undergone was, accordingly, made. 3. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by the National Commission for Women and the only plea raised is that the reasons given by the High Court for reducing the sentence awarded under Section 376 of the IPC were not acceptable as a helpless girl had been cruelly exploited and cheated by the accused. This matter came up for motion hearing before a Bench of this Court and permission to file the Special Leave Petition was granted and notice was issued on 2nd April 2009. Respondent No. 1, that is the State of Delhi, has filed a counter affidavit, in effect supporting the case of the Commission although it has been conveyed to us by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the State does not propose to file an application for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. The accused has also been served by publication but has not chosen to appear in response thereto.;