Punjab resident gets 7 yrs jail for kidnapping, sodomising child
A man has been given a seven-year jail term for kidnapping and sodomising a two-and-a-half-year- old child behind a gurudwara here by a Delhi court which said he does not deserve any leniency.india Updated: Apr 07, 2015 18:47 IST
A man has been given a seven-year jail term for kidnapping and sodomising a two-and-a-half-year- old child behind a gurudwara here by a Delhi court which said he does not deserve any leniency.
Additional Sessions Judge Atul Kumar Garg awarded the sentence to Surender, a Punjab resident, and also imposed a fine of Rs 15,000 on him saying he subjected the minor to unnatural lust.
"The evidence of the expert establishes the fact that the child was subjected to sodomy and prosecution witness no. 3 (woman) had seen the accused committing sodomy with the child.
"The documentary evidence as well as oral testimony of the witnesses establish the case of the prosecution that it was accused, who had kidnapped the child from his legal guardianship with an intent to subject him to unnatural lust and in fact committed sodomy," the court said.
It held Surender guilty of the offences of kidnapping in order to subject a person to grievous hurt or slavery and sodomy under the IPC.
"Considering the entirety of the circumstances, no leniency is required to be given to such a person in awarding the sentence," the court said.
According to the prosecution, Surender, who resided in the neighbourhood of the victim, kidnapped the child on August 9, 2011, and sodomised him behind Gurudwara Majnu Ka Tila here.
The accused was seen committing the offence by someone who informed the minor's parents. On seeing the child's parents, Surender started running away and left the boy there, it said.
Several injuries were also found on the child's body.
Surender was residing as a tenant in the same area where the child's family was living and knew each other.
During the trial, Surender claimed that he had lent some money to the father of child and when he demanded the money, he was falsely implicated in this case.
He sought a lenient view saying he has to support his family and was a first time offender.