A special court in Mumbai has convicted a school worker of raping an 11-year-old girl who studied at a city school in southern Mumbai. While the victim’s guardian wrote a letter in support of the defendant, the court ordered him to be imprisoned for 15 years.
The victim lost her mother and sister and was later abandoned by her father as well. She stayed with her aunt. Another aunt looks after her younger brother.
The incident dates back to February-March 2015, when the aunt noticed traces of injury on her body, but the girl evaded an answer. A fortnight later she saw the same spots on her body, but again she did not answer.
When the girl returned from school on March 25th, she struggled to walk and the aunt finally managed to get an answer from her.
The girl said the school sweeper sexually abused her and even threatened her that he would kill her if she passed the incident on to others.
The defendant used to live on the school grounds and, according to the victim, was standing in front of the gates. That day, he forcibly took her to a room and raped her. He had attacked her repeatedly 3-4 times in a month.
A FIR was registered following a complaint from his aunt and the defendant Pankaj Arjunbhai Koli was arrested. However, the 32-year-old defendant denied the allegations and was brought to justice.
The victim identified the accused in court and the medical officer confirmed the girl had been raped. During the trial, the defendant told the court that he was not a sweeper, but a gardener. However, the court found: “Regardless of the type of work he has done, his employment with the said school will be approved by the defendant.”
The defendant also informed the court that he was out of school on March 25 at the time of the incident. However, the court found that the allegation was not just that one day and that the defendant had not said anything about those days.
Judge Sanjashree Gharat noted, “Even if he was absent from school, it is not enough to prove that he was not available in his room on campus for vacation that day. In addition, as already mentioned, even if he is on vacation, it is not sufficient to conclude that he was not present at the location of the event. “
The court found the accused guilty and upheld the verdict for a later date. In the meantime, the defendant and the victim’s aunt reached a compromise.
While the verdict was being announced and the prosecution was demanding the harshest sentence, the defendant pointed out that he had a wife and a two-year-old child to look after.
He also pointed out the compromise that had been reached and made a request to this effect from the aunt, who stated that the victim had mistakenly taken the name of the accused and that he had not committed the crime.
Judge Gharat noted, “If the said claim is put on record, it is certainly not a ‘compromise’. The application was not made by the public prosecutor’s office. Meekness towards the accused The victim’s sufferings cannot be ignored. The victim was only 11 years old at the time of the commission. She has to bear this psychological trauma all her life. The penalty awarded to the accused should be proportionate to the offenses against which the accused has been proven. “
The court also established the defendant’s conduct. The court said: “It should be pointed out that the incident took place from February to March 2015. However, the defendant immediately married on May 7, 2015, although he was aware of a serious criminal offense.”
Judge Gharat further stated that “after the death of their mother and sister, their father abandoned them and their younger brother. Therefore, together with her younger brother, she abandoned herself to her aunt. The complainant is the victim’s aunt who is responsible for At the same time, the complainant’s sister has assumed responsibility for the victim’s younger brother. If the victim is at the mercy of his aunt, who happens to be the complainant in the matter, an application for the defendant’s release cannot be granted as a voluntary testimony of the victim. “
إرسال تعليق