Delhi HC Lowers Convict’s Jail Term from 30 to 20 Years in Rape Case
The Delhi High Court has recently modified a 30-year sentence awarded to a convict in a rape case to 20 years of imprisonment.
Justice Amit Sharma passed the verdict in response to a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, Vinod Rai @ Bhullan, challenging his 2013 conviction by the Trial Court for raping a minor girl.
The trial court had convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(i), 506, 354A(ii)(iii), and 450 of the Indian Penal Code.
While modifying the sentence, Justice Amit Sharma noted that the appellant had been working as a Safai Sahayak and his overall conduct in jail was satisfactory. He has been in continuous judicial custody since his arrest on April 6, 2015.
“The appellant thus stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(i) and (n), 450, 506 of the IPC. The appellant stands acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 354A of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act,” the court said.
The incident dates back to 2014, when the survivor was alone at home and the appellant, Vinod Rai @ Bhullan, a neighbour, visited her residence. He showed her obscene photos on his phone and sexually assaulted her. The survivor said that he committed the act two to three times, threatening her each time.
It came to light when the survivor complained of stomach pain, and her mother took her for medical treatment. During the journey, she disclosed the abuse. A medical examination had revealed pregnancy. Thereafter, the survivor underwent a Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP).
Before the High Court, the counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the survivor was below 12 years of age. It was further contended that the DNA report was inconclusive and that no pornographic material was recovered from the appellant’s phone.
On the other hand, the State submitted that the FSL report recorded that the appellant was the biological father of the foetus sample, which was sent for examination. It was also submitted that the survivor, at the time of the commission of the incident, was a child within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act.
Taking note of the submissions of all parties, the High Court held, “In the considered opinion of this Court, the defence taken by the appellant has failed to prove to the contrary the presumption raised under the POCSO Act, and the same could not be rebutted by the appellant.”
Accordingly, the Court upheld the conviction; however, it modified the sentence awarded to the convict.
It further directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to inform the appellant of his legal remedies and access to legal aid.
For Appellants: Ms. Aishwarya Rao and Ms. Mansi Rao, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State, with Ms. Mansi Sharma, Advocate.SI Meghna, PS Roop Nagar. Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the survivor. Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta (DSLSA) with Mr. Sidharth Barua, Mr. Shekhar Anand Gupta, Mr. Mike Desai, Ms. Navneet Kaur and Mr. Anvesh Verma, Advocates.
Case Title: Vinod Rai @ Bhullan versus STATE
Click here to read the judgement