Mumbai: Observing that persons accused of sexual offences against children must be “mercilessly and inexorably punished,” the Bombay High Court last week upheld the conviction of a 29-year-old man, convicted for raping a minor girl. The HC has also upheld the 10 years rigorous imprisonment punishment imposed on the convict by a lower court.
A single-judge bench of Justice Prithviraj Chavan turned down a criminal appeal filed by Powai-resident Sagar Dhuri, who had challenged the verdict of a special court, which convicted him for sexually assaulting a neighbourhood girl.
While dismissing Dhuri’s appeal, Justice Chavan observed, “The dicta is loud and clear as to how such offences are required to be dealt with. Such persons are a menace to the civilized society and, therefore, they should be mercilessly and inexorably punished.”
The bench further noted that there was no sign of reform or remorse on the part of Dhuri. “This is a case in which there is no question of reformation of Dhuri as he was quite a grown-up man who was aware of the consequences of his act,” Justice Chavan said.
The case pertains to the rape committed by Dhuri, who lives in the same chawl as the survivor in Powai. The prosecution has claimed that on a relevant day, Dhuri called the survivor at his house on the pretext of showing her some new songs on his cell phone.
On being called by Dhuri, the survivor, who was playing around his house with another minor, went to his house only to get the shock of her life, the police claimed.
According to the prosecution, Dhuri laid down the girl and jumped upon her after denuding her. His ‘obnoxious’ conduct was seen by the survivor’s friend, who went near Dhuri’s house as she wanted to play with her.
Subsequently, the friend apprised a neighbourhood woman about Dhuri and the survivor. The woman then went near Dhuri’s house and peeped inside from a hole and found that the convict was raping the minor girl.
Soon, the woman started shouting after which Dhuri opened his door letting the survivor out. The incident was narrated to the survivor’s mother, who then lodged a police complaint against Dhuri.
To bring home the guilt of Dhuri, the prosecution had examined the neighbourhood woman, the survivor, her friend and also her mother, before the trial court, which extensively relied upon their testimonies. Denying the charges, Dhuri argued that he was falsely implicated in the offence as the neighbourhood woman wanted to settle personal scores, however, Justice Chavan did not found any material to back this point.
