83-Year-Old Convict Appeals to Supreme Court Against 10-Year Sentence for Raping Minor
An 83-year-old man has approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging his conviction and 10-year imprisonment sentence in a 2012 case where he was found guilty of raping a 9-year-old girl who lived in his neighborhood. The case was heard by the Supreme Court this week and has been scheduled for further proceedings next month.
Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction, Rejects Age as Mitigating Factor
The Bombay High Court, in January of this year, firmly upheld the conviction and the 10-year prison term. In its ruling, the court explicitly stated that the convict's advanced age of 83 years does not constitute a mitigating circumstance that would warrant a reduction in sentence for such a grave offence.
The High Court further emphasized that it cannot turn a Nelson's eye to the age of the survivor and the severe trauma she endured. The court also denied the convict's request for a six-week stay on the judgment, citing the serious nature of the crime and the compelling evidence presented during the trial.
Original Conviction and Case Background
The initial conviction was delivered by the Goa Children's Court in 2018. The case came to light when the young survivor confided in a friend of her own age about the incident. This friend promptly informed the survivor's parents, leading to an immediate and timely formal complaint being filed with the authorities.
"The survivor in the present case has confided in the child of her age at the available opportunity and which in turn was communicated to her mother who without any loss of time and after properly ascertaining from the survivor has lodged the complaint...," the court noted in its judgment.
Court Cites Unimpeachable Evidence and Trial Court's Correct Ruling
The High Court found the survivor's testimony to be unimpeachable and credible. It ruled that even assuming the prosecution did not examine the convict's daughter for reasons unknown, this omission would not undermine the prosecution's case given the strength of the other evidence.
"In the present case, the evidence of the survivor is unimpeachable and therefore, assuming that the prosecution has not examined the daughter of the appellant, for the reasons best known, the same will not be fatal to the prosecution’s case," the court held.
The High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly convicted the man for the offences charged and that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt through cogent and reliable evidence. The case now awaits the Supreme Court's consideration in the upcoming month.
