Jagran correspondent, outer Delhi. Rohini court has sentenced a man who raped a mentally challenged 25-year-old woman to seven and a half years of rigorous imprisonment. The noteworthy aspect is that the convict has spent almost eight and a quarter years in jail. However, the convict will get the benefit under section 428 CrPC (adjustment of period of pre-conviction custody against sentence).
The court said in its decision that due to the actions of the accused, the victim had to suffer deep mental distress. While directing DLSA to give compensation to the victim as per rules, the court said that giving compensation to the victim will help in healing her wounds to some extent.
Additional Sessions Judge Viplav Dabas, hearing the nearly eight-year-old rape case, sentenced the accused. The judge has also sentenced Guddu Jha to seven and a half years of rigorous imprisonment and a financial penalty of Rs 10,000 under section 376.
In case of non-payment of fine, the convict will have to undergo imprisonment for six months. This incident happened on September 8, 2017. According to the FIR lodged at Swarupnagar police station, the accused Guddu Jha committed adultery with a woman living in the neighbourhood. When he protested, he even hit him on the head with a stick. The accused was caught on the spot.
The judge wrote in his judgment that it is well-known law that the punishment awarded to the convict should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense and there is no doubt as to the gravity of the offense punishable under Section 376 IPC. It is also undisputed that at the time of the crime, financial transactions were taking place between the accused and the husband of the victim and there was no prior enmity or animosity between the victim/her family and the accused.
Keeping these things in mind, the clean past record of the convict and the present facts, the Court does not find the convict to be a vicious criminal who deserves the harsh punishment of life imprisonment in this case. Additional Public Prosecutor Vineet Dahiya, considering the nature and seriousness of the crime, requested that no leniency be given to the convict and demanded maximum punishment prescribed by law. Also requested to give appropriate compensation to the victim.
The defense counsel submitted in the court that the convict and his family have no source of income to pay the fine and the time spent in custody (which is more than 8 years and 3 months) should be adjusted in the amount of the fine. On this the court said that the convict is being given benefits under Section 428 CrPC. If the accused is not required to commit any act, he should be released from custody.