In a powerful affirmation of justice, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal and upheld the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of an 83-year-old man for the horrific rape of a nine-year-old girl in Goa back in 2012. The court firmly rejected the notion that the convict's advanced age could lessen the severity of his crime.
Court Rejects Age as a Mitigating Factor
Justice Shreeram Shirsat, presiding over the case, delivered a resounding message by stating that the court did not find the appellant's age of 83 years to be a mitigating circumstance. This underscored the gravity of the sexual offence and the profound, lasting trauma inflicted upon the young survivor. The judgment highlighted that the severity of the crime and its impact on the child far outweighed any consideration related to the perpetrator's age.
The High Court also refused to grant a stay on the judgment, as sought by the accused's advocate for a period of six weeks. This decision was based on the serious nature of the crime and the robust evidence that formed the foundation of the prosecution's case.
Timely Disclosure and Unshakeable Evidence
The case dates back to 2012, when the survivor, who was a friend and neighbour of the convict's daughter, was assaulted. The incident came to light when the brave young girl confided in a friend of her own age. This friend promptly informed the survivor's mother, who acted swiftly.
The mother, after properly ascertaining the facts from her daughter, lodged a formal complaint without any delay. This timely disclosure and complaint were crucial in building the case. The High Court noted this chain of events as a key element, affirming that the survivor's testimony was clear and unimpeachable.
Children's Court Verdict Upheld
The conviction was initially delivered by the Goa Children's Court in 2018. The Bombay High Court, in its recent ruling, affirmed that the lower court had correctly based its decision on credible and solid evidence. The High Court further clarified that the prosecution's case remained strong even though the daughter of the appellant was not examined as a witness, stating that this omission was not fatal to their arguments.
This ruling reinforces the principle that justice must be delivered irrespective of the perpetrator's profile, and it stands as a stern warning against crimes targeting children. The court's focus remained squarely on the survivor's ordeal and the compelling evidence, ensuring that the legal process provided validation and closure for the victim and her family.
