New Delhi, A court here has sentenced a man to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment for raping a 2-year-old girl on the eve of Diwali last month, saying a lenient view could not be taken, as it was a case of digital rape.
In an order dated November 20, Additional Sessions Judge Babita Puniya underlined that the legislature did not make any distinction between digital penetration and penile penetration.
The court was hearing a case against the 30-year-old man, who had been convicted on November 19 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The convict had committed the offence on October 20, and the investigation and trial in the case were completed within a month.
Trashing the defence counsel’s plea seeking a lenient view, as the convict had committed digital rape, Judge Puniya said, "The legislature has not made any distinction between digital penetration and penile penetration. Penetration, as per rape law, can be penile/vaginal, penile/oral, penile/anal, object or finger/vaginal and object or finger/anal penetration."
The judge also junked the convict’s plea for leniency on the grounds of being intoxicated and that he was illiterate.
{{/usCountry}}The judge also junked the convict’s plea for leniency on the grounds of being intoxicated and that he was illiterate.
{{/usCountry}}"Admittedly, the convict was under the influence of some intoxicating substance at the time of the commission of the offence. However, this is not a mitigating factor because it is not as if someone forced him to consume the same, and he consumed ganja/liquor voluntarily, that too on the eve of Diwali."
"I am of the view that illiteracy cannot be considered as a mitigating factor, particularly in child abuse cases. It is not only legally punishable but is morally repugnant also," the judge said.
The court then sentenced him to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment, stating that the quantum of the sentence would provide just retribution and adequate protection to society, while also making the convict realise the gravity of his act and leaving scope for his rehabilitation.
It said, "Certain rape cases like Nirbhaya, Kathua gained spotlight amongst the media, which resulted in hue and cry among the society. After these cases, certain amendments were made in the existing law. However, a court must not be swayed away by the emotions of society, ignoring the principles laid down by the Supreme Court."
Noting that the convict was a friend of the victim’s father and was visiting the family from a village, the judge said that the trust reposed in him had been violated.
"The victim was in the safest place in her world, which was her home, but the convict made it unsafe for her. Moreover, the festival of lights turned into darkness that will remain with her and her family for the rest of their life."
"I am of the view that though the suffering of the victim and her family cannot be compensated in monetary terms, it would provide financial solace to her," the judge said.
The court then awarded ₹13.5 lakh compensation.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.