New Delhi: A city court has awarded six-year jail term to a youth for sexually assaulting a seven-year-old girl while relying on scientific evidence, even though the girl and her parents turned hostile during the trial.
Additional Sessions Judge Rakesh Pandit awarded the jail term to the youth, a resident of south-west Delhi, for the offence committed in August 2014 and also imposed a fine Rs 50,000 on him.
The court also asked the Delhi Legal Services Authority to give a compensation of the similar amount to the girl.
“In this case, the convict was related to the teacher of the victim. Considering the fact that the convict had taken advantage of the tender age of the child who could not protect herself and to the fact that the convict exploited the piousness of the relationship, the facts do not demand lenient view,” the court said while awarding the jail term.
The accused was convicted for the offence committed under Section 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Based on the DNA report and other scientific evidence, the court held that “the prosecution is able to prove that an aggravated sexual assault took place on the victim.
Prosecution was also able to prove that it was the accused who committed the offence”.
While denying leniency to the convict, the court said that “the sexual assault is against a child and thus does not deserve that convict be released on probation”.
According to police, on August 19, 2014, the case was filed by the girl’s mother who alleged that her daughter was raped and sodomised by the accused when she had gone for tuition.
The police had filed the charge sheet under sections 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offence) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and under provisions of the POCSO Act.
During examination before the court, the girl failed to recognise the youth and did not support the allegations made in the charge sheet. Later, her parents also denied the allegations made in the charge sheet.
The accused, however, had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.