A Delhi court has sent a 26-year- old man to 15 years in jail for sexually assaulting a toddler, saying that he does not deserve any leniency.
The court held the man guilty of sexually assaulting a two-and-a-half-year old girl while relying on the medical evidence and also said the deposition of prosecution witnesses was found to be trustworthy and reliable.
“Testimony of prosecution witnesses is found to be trustworthy and reliable in respect of accused committing penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Accordingly, he stands convicted for the offence punishable Section 6 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,” additional sessions judge Gautam Manan said.
“In my considered opinion, the nature of offence committed by the convict does not demand any leniency. Keeping in view of age of the convict and remorse shown by him, he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years,” the judge said.
The court also imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on Shiva, a resident of Azadpur village in north Rohini in New Delhi.
It directed that a compensation of Rs three lakhs be given to the victim child to provide her ‘restorative and compensatory justice’ and sent a copy of the order to the Delhi State Legal Service Authority for compliance.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place in May 2013, when the complainant woman was sleeping in her room with her two daughters. When she woke up in the evening, she did not find one of her daughters in the house and started searching her.
On hearing her daughter’s cries, she went to the roof and found the youth raping the minor, it said, adding that she raised an alarm following which he fled the spot.
The woman disclosed about the incident to her husband and brother the next morning. They caught hold of the youth and lodged a case against him at Adarsh Nagar police station.
During the trial, Shiva claimed that the child’s father had taken Rs 30,000 loan from him and was not returning it and he was falsely implicated for asking his money back.
The court rejected his plea saying no ulterior motive was attributed to the complainant for implicating him in the grievous offence.