HC upholds conviction of man for mutilating private parts of minor girl

The court observed that the offence was “committed out of severe sexual lust and sadistic approach” and the appellant does not deserve any leniency

PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court on Friday upheld the imprisonment awarded to a man who had mutilated private parts of a four-year-old girl in 1988 and was convicted by the sessions court under sections 324 and 354 of the IPC.

The court also showed dissatisfaction with the state counsel not challenging the short-term of sentence awarded to the appellant. (File Photo of Allahabad high court)

The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal dismissed the appeal filed by one Ishrat who was convicted by additional district and sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in sessions trial no. 175 (State vs Ishrat).

The court observed that the offence was “committed out of severe sexual lust and sadistic approach” and the appellant does not deserve any leniency.

It also showed dissatisfaction with the state counsel not challenging the short-term of sentence awarded to the appellant and observed, “It is very sorry state of affairs that the State has not preferred any appeal against the leniency observed by the learned Trial Court in sentencing the appellant to such a short term. The lethargy of the public prosecutor is highly deplorable.”

According to the prosecution, on November 29, 1988, the appellant committed the offence of mutilating the private parts of the minor girl who was his neighbour after having attempted to rape her.

On October 20, 1992, Ishrat was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC (hurt by dangerous weapon) and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 354 (assault or use of criminal force to outrage modesty of a woman) and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. This judgement was challenged before the high court. Both sentences were to run separately.

The court, after going through records of the case, observed: “From the evidence available on record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant Ishrat had committed grave offence and the learned lower court had rightly convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.”

On the brutal act by the accused, the court observed,”... the offence committed by the appellant by mutilating the private part of the minor girl cannot be termed as an act of a person of normal virtues. The said offence has been committed out of severe sexual lust and sadistic approach. The appellant does not deserve any kind of leniency…”