Delhi High Court
State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi vs Jaidev & Ors on 31 July, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Pronounced on: 31st July, 2025
+ CRL.A. 798/2025
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Vikas
Bhardwaj
Versus
1. JAIDEV .....Respondent No. 1
S/o SH. NAFE SINGH
2. JAGMAL .....Respondent No. 2
S/o SH. NAFE SINGH
3. JAGDEV .....Respondent No. 3
S/o SH. NAFE SINGH
4. SURAJ BHAN ALIAS MONU .....Respondent No. 4
S/o SH. JAIDEV
XXX, DURGA PURI,
SHAHDARA, DELHI
Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma &Mr.Rahul Sharma,
Advocates for Respondents No.1 & 4
Mr.Satyam Thareja &Mr.Shaurya
Katoch, Advocates for Respondent
No.3
Mr. Shalabh Gupta &Ms.Vandita
Gupta, Advocates for Complainant
+ CRL.A. 833/2025
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
1. 'J' .....Appellant No.1
W/O MR. YOGENDER KUMAR
2. 'XYZ' .....Appellant No.2
(Identity not disclosed being minor victim)
THROUGH APPELLANT NO.1
Through: Mr. Shalabh Gupta &Ms.Vandita
Gupta, Advocates
Versus
1. THE STATE .....Respondent No. 1
5, SHAMNATH MARG,
NEW DELHI.
2. JAIDEV .....Respondent No. 2
S/o SH. NAFE SINGH
3. SURAJ BHAN .....Respondent No. 3
S/o JAIDEV
4. JAGMAL SINGH .....Respondent No. 4
S/o SH. NAFE SINGH
5. JAGDEV SINGH .....Respondent No. 5
S/o SH. NAFE SINGH
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State with SI Vikas
Bhardwaj
Mr.Satyam Thareja &Mr.Shaurya
Katoch, Advocates for Respondent
No.5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. This Court vide Judgment dated 28.05.2025, has convicted the
Respondent/Jaidev for the offences punishable under Section 294/354-
A/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as”IPC“)
and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012(hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act“). The Respondents, Suraj
Bhan @ Monu and Jagmal have been convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 354-A/509/34 IPC.
2. The Respondent No.1/Convict Jaidev in his Affidavit has submitted
that he has been suffering from Mental Disorder and has been taking
treatment from Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS).
He was discharged/compulsorily retired from Delhi Police. He tried to find
work, but could not get any regular job. He does odd jobs as his health
permits and has no regular professional income.
3. His wife is 54 years old who suffers from High Blood Pressure,
Osteoporosis, Cervical etc. His son, Suraj Bhan has also been convicted in
this case. He also had aged parents of about 85 years of age who suffer from
various old age ailments. He has two brothers who help in taking care of his
parents. One of the brother is Respondent No.2/Jagmal Singh who has also
been convicted in the present FIR.
4. The Convict/Jaidev further submits that he has not been convicted in
any other offence except in the present case. In the last nine years to his
knowledge, no fresh Complaint has been filed by the Complainant or her
family member against him despite being neighbours.
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
5. It is submitted that the incident happened 12 years ago and he had
throughout cooperated with the Authorities and the Judicial system.
6. The RespondentNo.2/Convict Jagmal in his Affidavit has stated
that he is 55 years old. His wife is 50 years old and he has a daughter and a
son aged 18 years and 15 years, respectively.
7. His wife suffers from Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc/Herniated or Slip
Disc, Lower Respiratory Tract Infection and Vertigo. His aged parents are
around 85 years of age. His father suffers from UTI/renal failure and has to
be hospitalized regularly. The Discharge Summary of his father Shri Nafe
Singh dated 05.02.2025 and 20.05.2025 are annexed with the Affidavit. His
mother also suffers from renal failure and is getting treatment at Yashoda
Super Speciality Hospital, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
8. It is submitted that he himself is a heart patient and has been
diagnosed with hypokinetic basal anterior septum which is reduced
movement of the heart’s basal anterior septum i.e. a specific region of the
heart’s wall. His left ventricular ejection fraction is 45%.
9. The Convict Jagmal has further submitted that he is 12th pass and is
the sole bread earner of the family. He is in Government job since 2002 and
is currently working as a Constable in Delhi Police. He has been rewarded
and given commendations by his Superior, for the work done by him. He
has never ever been convicted in any other offence except the present case.
10. The FIR was registered in May, 2013 i.e. 12 years ago and he has co-
operated with the Authorities and Judicial system throughout this period.
11. The Respondent No.4/Convict Suraj Bhan Singh in his Affidavit
has submitted that he is 36 years old while his wife is 31 years of age and he
has three children aged 13 years, 9 years and 1.5 years respectively.
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
12. His parents are dependent upon him and they do not have any
professional income. His father suffers from Mental Disorder for which he
has been given treatment from Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied
Sciences (IHBAS) and his mother also suffers from various ailments.
13. The Convict, Suraj Bhan further submits that he is a graduate having
done B.A. (Hons.) Political Science from Delhi University. He is the sole
bread earner of the family being in Government employment since 2009 and
is working as Head Constable in Delhi Police In the past 9 years and more,
there is no fresh Complaint filed against him by the Complainant. There is
no other criminal case pending against him.
14. The present FIR had also been registered about 12 years ago in May,
2013 and he had co-operated with the Authorities and the Judicial system
during this period.
15. TheLd. APP for State,however, has vehemently contended that
despite being neighbours and all the Convicts employed in Delhi Police,
their conduct and the offence committed by them, does not deserve any
leniency. It is also submitted that there is no question of benefit of Probation
being given to them, considering the nature of offences.
16. It is submitted that they may be awarded severest of punishment for
their acts.
17. The husband of the Complainanthad appeared on behalf of the
Complainant and submitted that even though he as well as the
Respondents/Convicts being in Delhi Police and live in the neighbourhood,
the Respondents have been persistentlycontinuing to misconduct themselves
to an extent that it had become impossiblefor his wife/Complainant and the
young daughter of the family to even step out of the house.
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
18. It is further submitted that this is not the sole incident, the harassment
continuedand the FIRs No.1045/2014 under Section 195A and 355 IPC and
FIR No.789/2015 under Section 354-A/509 IPC have been registered against
the Convicts by the Complainant.
19. Despite having become entitled to promotion in the year 2016, it has
been held up on account of the criminal cases registered against him by the
Respondents. It is vehemently contended that the life of the Complainant
and the family members has been completely ruined and there has not been
any repentance on the part of the Respondents who had persisted in their
continued misbehaviour.
20. He further submitted that no amount of money can compensate the
harm and the loss suffered by the Complainant or by him and the other
family members. The brother of the Complainant (whose minor daughter
was also a victim in this case) was also in Delhi Police, but even he has
suffered on account of this litigation.
21. It is vehemently contended that severest of punishment be awarded to
the three Respondents/Convicts.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
22. Sentence of punishment poses a complex problem, which requires
balancing of competitive views based on reformative punitive deterrent, as
well as, retributive theories of punishment. A just and proper sentence
should neither be too harsh or not too lenient in judging the adequacy of the
sentence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R. Venkatakrishnan vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 11 SCC 737 observed that in
judging the adequacy of the sentence, the nature of offence, the
circumstances of its commission, the aged character of the offender, injury
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
to individual or to the society, effect of punishment on offender, are some
amongst many factors, which should be ordinarily taken into consideration
by the Courts.
23. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the
prime objectives of the sentencing is imposition of appropriate, adequate,
just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of
the crime and the manner in which it is committed. There can be no
straitjacket formula for sentencing an Accused, who is convicted for a crime.
The twin objective of the sentencing policy is punitive or rehabilitative. The
circumstances of each case would depend whether it is
restorative/rehabilitative approach, which must be taken or is a fit case for
punitive sentence, which may act as a deterrent.
24. While taking any approach, it is significant to ensure that there is
proportionality in sentencing the crime and the criminal and must be the
most pre-dominant factor in determining the sentence. The all aspects
including social interest and consciousness of the society along with the
individual situation of the convict, must be kept in mind while deciding on
the appropriate sentence. In the Case of State of M.P. vs. Mehtaab, 2015 (5)
SCC 197, the Apex Court emphasised the importance of the need to consider
the victim on one hand and the society on the other hand. It was observed
that every mitigating or aggravating circumstance may be given due weight
and mechanical imposition of sentence is not appreciated. Likewise, it is not
appropriate to merely sentence a person a convict to the period already
undergone. Such an approach is neither fair to the convict or to the victim
and the society. In the Case of Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors., 2006 2SCC 339, the Supreme Court observed that the
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the
objective of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.
Whether to adopt a corrective machinery or a deterrence based sentence
depends on the factual matrix. Undue sympathy resulting in imposition of
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system in
undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society. While
ordinarily the sentence to be awarded is in the discretion of the Court but
while so exercising the discretion, it must be underlying with
appropriateness, proportionality and the surroundings circumstances.
25. Guided by this principle, it may be observed in the present case that it
was a case registered in 2012. The convicts are none other than the police
officials, who are responsible to maintain law and order in society.
Furthermore, they were the neighbours of the Complainant and the child
victim and were fully aware and conscious of their offensive acts towards
them. It is not a case where a restorative or rehabilitative approach would be
justified while sentencing.
26. It is the case where there is none other choice but to adopt the punitive
approach, which may also send a signal to the society and act as a deterrent
for the convicts like them in the society. With these fundamentals in mind,
the Respondents are sentenced hereunder.
Convict Jaidev:
27. The Convict Jaidev is aged about 55 years and his conduct is sought
to be justified by asserting that he had Mental Disorder and had even taken
treatment from IHBAS. The Medical documents have been placed on
record, but they were all of June, 2013 onwards while the incident was of
May, 2013.
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
28. The conduct of the Convict was persistent, who would regularly stand
in the street and strip himself naked on seeing the Complainant andher niece.
Such act of the Convict who was in Delhi Police, cannot be forgiven or
overlooked. He, being a Police official, was duty bound to abide by the law
and to ensure the maintenance of law and Order. However, he instead had
indulged in the sexual offences, not only towards the Complainant but also a
little child of about 6 years of age.
29. The Complainant despite being the neighbourof the Convict, has also
not stopped him from his persistent act. He may be 55 years old, but
looking at the act for which he has been convicted, no leniency is merited.
30. He is convicted as under :-
S.No. Offence Punishment
1. For the offence under Rigorous Imprisonment for two years
Section 12 POCSO Act and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, the
convict shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two months.
2. For the offence under Simple Imprisonment for three months
Section 294 IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, the
convict shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one month.
3. For the offence under Rigorous Imprisonment for two years
Section 354-A IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, the
convict shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two months.
4. For the offence under Rigorous Imprisonment for one year
Section 509 IPC and a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, the
convict shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one month.
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
Convict Jagmal and Suraj Bhan @ Monu:
31. Convicts Jagmal and Suraj Bhan @ Monu have been convicted under
Section 354-A and 509 IPC for having made explicit sexual remarks towards
the Complainant and had made vulgar gestures towards the Complainant.
Convict Suraj Bhan is a young man of about 36 years and is the son of
Convict Jaidev, while Convict Jagmal aged about 55 years is the brother of
Convict Jaidev.
32. It cannot be overlooked that all the three convicts belong to the same
family and they all together on the date of incident, had mis-conducted
themselves and had persisted in committing the offence. The gravity of the
offence gets aggravated by the circumstances that they both are in Delhi
Police and are neighbours.
33. It can also not be overlooked that after this FIR, there were other FIRs
that they had got registered in the year 2014 and 2015 against the Convicts.
Alos several Complaints were filed by the Convicts against the Husband of
the Complainant which has had serious impact on his promotion, which he
was due in 2016. The conduct of the Convict Suraj Bhan and Jagmal does
not call for any leniency in awarding the sentences.
34. They both are convicted as under :-
S.No. Offence Punishment
1. For the offence under Section Rigorous Imprisonment for one
354-A IPC year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, the
convicts shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two months.
2. For the offence under Section Rigorous Imprisonment for one
509 IPC year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
In default of payment of fine, the
convicts shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one month.
35. All the sentences for all the Convicts shall run concurrently.
36. The Convicts are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court
within five days.
37. A copy of the Order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court to ensure
the compliance.
38. The Appeals are accordingly disposed off, along with pending
Application(s), if any.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 31, 2025
va
CRL.A. 798/2025&CRL.A. 833/2025 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:31.07.2025
19:25:28
[ad_1]
Source link