50% of Delhi’s population feels unsafe due to rise in sex crimes: Court
A Delhi court observed that a person held guilty for such offences must be dealt in a stern manner and they do not deserve any leniency from the court otherwise, a wrong and negative message shall go to the societydelhi Updated: Jul 26, 2017 16:35 IST
Fifty per cent of the population in the city feels unsafe due to rise in cases of sexual offences against women, a Delhi court has observed while refusing to set aside jail term of a convict in a sexual harassment case.
A rise in such cases has led to a feeling of insecurity among people, the court said.
“The rise in cases of sexual offences against women and young girls which are increasing day-by-day on public roads and streets in the capital city of India are creating a feeling of being unsafe and insecure in the minds of 50% of the constituents of total population.
“A person held guilty for such offences must be dealt in a stern manner and they do not deserve any leniency from the court otherwise, a wrong and negative message shall go to the society and the people instead of deterring themselves from indulging into such acts would rather feel encouraged to do such crimes,” Additional Sessions Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma said while upholding one year jail term of the convict.
According to the complaint, when the woman was walking towards her residence in south east Delhi on January 27, 2013, accused Sunil Kumar hit her, touched her inappropriately and used filthy language.
She ran home to her husband and the matter was reported to the police following which the accused was arrested, the prosecution said.
The man was sentenced to one year imprisonment by a magisterial court in 2016, which he challenged before the sessions court on the ground that he accidentally touched her.
He had claimed the court had wrongly convicted him as there was no independent witness in the case.
The sessions judge, however, dismissed his appeal and said, “I do not find any ambiguity, illegality or infirmity in the sentence awarded to the appellant by the then metropolitan magistrate.”