Two sentenced to 14 years RI for sexually assaulting minor girl

A fast-track court in Haryana sentenced two men to 14 years for kidnapping and assaulting a girl, emphasizing the crime's severe impact.

Gurugram:

The case involved the abduction of a 15-year-old girl on January 23. (File Photo)

A fast-track Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) court in Palwal, Haryana has sentenced two people to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹15,000 on each for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl, and extorting money from her family.

The judgment, delivered by additional sessions judge Prashant Rana, emphasised the heinous nature of the crimes, ordering consecutive sentences for the convicts — a departure from the usual concurrent sentencing practice.

A third accomplice was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹10,000 for providing an illegal SIM card that was used in the extortion.

The court also ordered the payment of ₹5 lakh as compensation to the victim, to be deposited in a fixed deposit account until she reaches adulthood.

The case involved the abduction of a 15-year-old girl on January 23. Investigators said two suspects — identified as Lokesh Kumar, 28, and Joginder Singh, 29, of Palwal — kidnapped her while she was walking home from tuition, forcibly stripped her inside their car, and filmed a video. This video, investigators said, was later used to extort ₹3 lakh in cash and gold from her father.

Judge Rana, in his judgment, highlighted the gravity of the crime, stating, “The convicts in this case have acted like terrorists, only their weapons were different.” He emphasised the lasting trauma inflicted upon the victim and her family, stating, “The scars left by the offences committed by the convicts would remain forever on the psyche of the Victim.”

To underscore the societal impact of such crimes, the judge quoted the renowned poet Rabindranath Tagore.

“Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free; Where the world has not been broken 1 up into fragments by narrow domestic walls; Where words come out from the depth of truth; Where tireless striving stretches its arms 2 towards perfection. Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action, Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake,” read the order.

The judge emphasised that the convicts had attempted to undermine this vision of a fearless and just society by instilling fear in the victim and her family. He further stated, “The convicts in this case have tried to strike a blow on the above-mentioned Indian Dream of a fearless society, by creating permanent fear in the mind of the girl child and her family members.”

The court acknowledged the immense psychological trauma inflicted upon the victim, stating, “For a period of around 30 minutes, the victim was made to sit naked in the car. The car was roaming in the various parts of that town, where the Victim was born, brought up and educated. The trauma caused to the victim by the convicts cannot be described in words. At around 7 pm, she was coming from tuition talking to her friend on phone and was about to reach home, where she would have taken her meals with her family, watched TV and slept in a most secure and comfortable environment. On account of the actions of the convicts, the opposite happened. She found herself sitting naked, inside a car with 2 strangers much elder in age, with a knife pointing towards her. She was forced to remain naked in the winter season, when the other people are visible in warm clothes and mufflers, etc, in the CCTV footages. Apart from the shivering due to the cold weather, she would have been trembling out of fear and shame.”

The court also considered the long-term impact of the crime on the victim and her family, stating, “The Victim and her parents and other family members remained under constant fear from the time of first offence till February 22, when the convicts were apprehended.”

The judge emphasised the need for a strong deterrence and stated, “The convicts do not deserve any leniency. Rather, they deserve the maximum punishment which the Court can award, as per the provisions of law, so that the sentencing meets its purposes of Prevention, Deterrence, Retribution, and Reformation as well.”