A sessions court today enhanced the sentence of former Haryana DGP SPS Rathore from six months to one-and-a-half years prison term for molesting 14-year-old Ruchika Girhotra 20 years back following which the disgraced top policeman was arrested by the CBI.

Pronouncing the verdict in a packed court room, Additional District and Sessions Judge Gurbir Singh dismissed the appeal filed by 68-year-old Rathore challenging the six months jail term awarded earlier.

The judge allowed the pleas of CBI and Ruchika's family for enhancement of his sentence.

The court directed that Rathore be taken to the local Burail Jail immediately following dismissal of his appeal and enhancement of the sentence after which he was taken into custody by the CBI.

After the sentencing, Rathore looked grim, his face sans its usual wide grin, but he told reporters, "I will keep smiling".

The former DGP was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment on December 21 last year by CBI Judge J S Sidhu for molesting Ruchika, a budding tennis player, in Panchkula on August 12, 1990.

Three years after the incident, Ruchika committed suicide.

The quantum of sentence had sparked an outrage in the country. Rathore was later stripped of his President's Police Medal.

Rathore had sought setting aside the trial court verdict against him while Ruchika's family and the CBI had pleaded for enhancement of punishment to the maximum of two years provided in the law.

The court directed the jail superintendent to provide proper medical care to Rathore, if required, following an application by his lawyer-wife Abha that he was a heart patient and required care.

The court allowed Rathore's plea for getting himself examined at the cardiac care department of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER).

"This is a historic decision,"  Ruchika's family lawyer Pankaj Bhardwaj said, adding the verdict will enhance the common man's trust in the judicial system. The lawyer added that Rathore can file a revision petition before the High Court "which is the only competent court to grant him bail".

After the pronouncement of verdict this afternoon, Rathore remained seated in the court as his wife moved an application seeking a copy of the judgement.

Rathore told the court and the CBI officials, who wanted to take him into custody, "My sentence has been enhanced. I have my right to get the copy of the order".

The judge told Rathore that there is no rule to give a copy of the judgement. "The judgement has been passed on your appeal. You take it from the sessions court after applying in the Copy Branch," he said.

In his 103 page judgement, Additional District and Sessions Judge Gurbir Singh said Rathore has "no remorse for the wrong committed by him."

"Every witness of this case had to face allegations in one form or the other and an attempt was made to catch the witness in a well woven legal web," the court said.

"Although convict deserves maximum punishment which is prescribed for offence under Section 354 IPC but keeping in view the age of the convict, his medical background, his dependent unmarried daughter who is suffering from congenital heart problem... "

"... His meritorious service record and the fact that convict spent more than 200 dates in the court during trial of the case, I am of the view that purpose of law would be met if convict is awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years, otherwise, face of the public in justice delivery system/judiciary would erode," the Judge said .

"The sentence of fine remains unchanged. The convict is ordered to be taken into custody and is ordered to be sent to the concerned jail for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment," the Judge said.

The Court rejected the plea of defence for relief under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which it said is to prevent conversion of youthful offenders into obdurate criminals of mature age in case they are sentenced to undergo substantive imprisonment in jail.

"The release of the offender on probation saves him from stigmatisation and thus prepares him for an upright living. The shame of going through the trial process would have sufficient chastised him. On the other hand if offenders are not punished suitably and adequately, the faith and confidence of public in criminal justice system is bound to erode and tendency to obey the law will be decreased gradually which should not be good for the society," it said.

"If offenders are punished according to the gravity of the offence, then the people will think twice before committing the offence again, rather they will follow the law strictly and also the convicted person after undergoing punishment will hesitate to commit it again..."

"... There is an impression and feeling among the people that probation law is an easy let off of the wrong doer and it is a form of leniency shown to the offender and not a punishment," the court said. 

"While passing sentence or releasing the offender on probation the court cannot ignore the victim who has suffered humiliation, indignity, loss of reputation, loss of damage to his property and injury both physical and mental. Some victims are satisfied with the grant of compensation only but it is always not so. The Court has to consider the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender and position of the victim while awarding the sentence or releasing the offender on probation," it said.

The court also held that allegations against Rathore are of moral turpitude. "Such allegations are serious in nature pertaining to the circumstances when the victim was minor. Liberal view cannot be taken, prolonged trial and age of the convict can be considered while passing the order on quantum of sentence," the court said declining any relief to the retired policemen.

The court said, "In the instant case, the offence committed by the convict is under Section 354 IPC. At the time of commission of offence, the convict was police officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police whereas, victim was a teenaged minor school going girl having high hopes from life. She used to play lawn tennis in the courts of HLTA with sole aim to become good player.

"The convict was President of HLTA and that time and was even running office of HLTA in the garage of his house which means he was over all incharge of all the functions of HLTA, the court detailed the incident of molestation of August 12, 1990 and subsequent incidents that followed, including filing of defamation cases by Rathore against many persons, including minor victim (Ruchika) and her friend Aradhana and expulsion of Ruchika from Sacred Heart Convent School."

The Court also noted that it is a fact that Ashu, Ruchika's brother was arrested in various cases of theft but he was discharged in all the cases of theft by the courts. "Since CBI did not collect any evidence as to why he was implicated in theft cases and what was the reason for his discharge and at whose instance he was arrested or implicated in the cases so no comments can be made on this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant and CBI," the Judge said.

"There is no dispute that Ruchika committed suicide. A precious life is lost. Thereafter departmental enquiry initiated against the convict on the basis of inquiry report of DGP RR Singh were dropped. The convict got promotions and retired as DGP of Haryana. The convict was working as senior police officer at the time of occurrence. He was President of HLTA. As police officer his role was to protect the public. As President of HLTA his role was to train young budding players for the India. 

"... But he failed in both duties by molesting a minor girl. People are afraid to send their minor girls to play grounds due to presence of such persons in the sports field. Due to activities of such persons, our nation is lagging behind in every sport and citizens of country felt ashamed as knowing that India lost again.

"As long as such persons are at the helm of affairs of sports associations the presence of women in the sports activities cannot be increased and real talent cannot be brought forward to represent the country in various sports. Justice should not only be done but it appears to have been done," the judge said.

The judge said, "I have considered the arguments of learned defence counsel if convict is not released on probation then it may affect his pensionary benefits but keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that the legal battle was between two unequals the said contention of the defence counsel is of no help to the convict."

"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case the authorities cited by learned defence counsel for releasing the convict on probation are distinguishable on facts and ratio of said authorities cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case," the judge said.

The order further said, "If convict is released on probation then it would be mockery of the justice delivery system. It is a case in which convict deserves maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 354 IPC. The learned trial court fell in error by awarding rigorous imprisonment of six months to the convict."

The court said that the trial court was required to minutely consider the conduct of the convict after the occurrence and during trial of the case.

Cross examination of Aradhana was conducted in 152 pages. Cross-examination of Anand Parkash, Madhu Parkash, Manish Arora, Naresh Mittal and S.C. Girhotra was conducted in 26 pages, 124 pages, 40 pages, 62 pages and 152 pages respectively, the court said.

The judge said, "No doubt, every accused has got right to cross-examine the witness but no one has got right to drag the cross-examination to such an extent. Such a lengthy cross-examination of the witnesses prove that they were put on trial and accused was not facing trial."

The court also did not find any merit with the contention of Rathore that he was a victim of media trial. "The objection raised by the learned defence counsel that convict is a victim of media trial is without any basis," the judge added.

"Learned trial court has rightly held that court has concern with the facts and circumstances which are available on record only and court is not concerned with the report of any agency about the accused or the victim. So I am of the view that courts are only bound by law and its own judicial conscience.

Till today, media cannot influence the decision making process. Indian courts and Indian judicial system is very strong. If media is able to influence the judgements of the Indian courts then there cannot be independence of judiciary," the judge said adding that the courts work on the basis of legal evidence available on record.

The judge said that nobody should apprehend that the media trial can influence the decision of the courts. "For awarding sentence the court is to take into consideration totality of facts," the Court said.