Top
Millennium Post

High Court upholds 10-year jail term for rapist, dismisses leniency plea

The Delhi high court has upheld 10 years’ jail  term awarded to a young and first time offender for sexually assaulting a seven-year-old girl, observing that “ such persons need a greater deterrent to deter them from committing any such crime in future.”

Justice <g data-gr-id="27">Indermeet</g> Kaur made this observation while rejecting the plea for a lenient punishment made by counsel for the convict, Rajesh.

“...even assuming that the appellant is a young boy and a first offender but this court notes with pain that such persons, in fact, need a greater deterrent to deter them from committing any such crime in future,” Kaur said, dismissing his appeal against the lower court judgement awarding the sentence.

The convict had sexually assaulted the girl after enticing her away from near a drain where she was playing on the pretext of giving her ‘chizzi’  in <g data-gr-id="30">May,</g> 2010.

The victim had stood by her statement recorded by a metropolitan magistrate in the trial as well. The high court described the victim a <g data-gr-id="31">star</g> witness. “Relevant would it be to note that this testimony of the victim in court was also her vision in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before the magistrate,” Kaur stated. 

It is important to note that Section 164 statement is admissible as evidence in the trial of a case. The medical evidence and forensic tests also proved that the convict had raped the minor girl.

The high court also noted that counsel for the convict “fairly” conceded during the argument on the appeal that the trial judge had appreciated the evidence in a correct perspective.

Stating that the public prosecutor in the case had rightly pointed out that if such a convict was awarded a punishment lesser than the minimum prescribed (10 years) by the legislature, Kaur said: “It would send a wrong message to society as such kinds of crimes are an abhorrent to our society,” adding that the appeal was “without merit.” 
Next Story
Share it