NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has awarded seven years jail term to a man for raping his neighbhour, saying the convict has "committed the vile act" and deserves to be suitably punished for it.
"... We must see the plight of the prosecutrix, who was subjected to rape, which is universally considered to be the amongst the most morally and physically, reprehensible crime in society and assault on the body, mind, privacy and the entire fabric of the victim," Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sanjiv Jain said. The court further said that the dignity of the victim is
"shredded" and "the social stigma attached to this crime is such that many a times, a crime would go unreported by the victim. The convict in this case has committed the vile act of rape and deserves to be suitably punished for it". The court also imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on Delhi resident Satyajeet Kumar Jaiswal for the offence punishable under section 376 (rape) of IPC.
It recommended that the victim be compensated appropriately under provisions of law by the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) (South district). On July 24, the court had convicted Jaiswal saying prosecution successfully proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and brought home all the ingredients of the offence for which the accused has been charged. It observed, "we must realise that ordinarily a woman, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity. She suffers a tremendous sense of shame and the fear of being shunned by society and her near relatives."
"Instead of treating her with compassion and understanding, as one who is injured victim of a crime, she is, more often than not, treated as a sinner and shunned. It must therefore be realised that a woman who is subjected to sex violence would always be slow and hesitant about disclosing her plight." It had said that the accused was fully aware that the woman's husband was not at home and her children had gone for tuition and thus entered her house, gagged her mouth and raped her.
The court had rejected Jaiswal's contention that the woman was a consenting party to their relationship, and said "submissions under the influence of fear or terror or false promise is not consent". "Facts and circumstances of the case show that the woman never consented the accused to have physical relations with her and it is a case of forcible rape," it had said while
During the trial, the accused had denied the allegations and said he was falsely implicated in the case by the woman's husband who had come to know about their alleged affair. He had claimed that the woman was in a relationship with him and had consented to the physical relation. According to the prosecution, an FIR was lodged on March 15, 2011 on the complaint of the woman, who alleged that Jaiswal had raped her, when her husband and children were not at home.