Refusing to interfere with the trial court's decision, Justice S P Garg said that the convict "deserves no leniency particularly when the victim was aged about five years and was like his daughter".
"The appellant's conviction is primarily based upon X's (minor) testimony. She, in her court statement, identified the appellant to be the perpetrator of the crime. She was taken inside the house by the accused on the pretext to give toffee when she was playing outside.
The high court affirmed conviction of Upender Mukhiya, a vegetable seller who appealed against the trial court's April 2010 judgement which had handed him down the jail term of ten years for raping the minor girl.
Also Read
During the trial, the accused pleaded he had been falsely implicated and denied his involvement in the crime.
The court, however, brushed aside the convict's contention and said "since the perpetrator of the crime was known to the victim and belonged to their native place, he deserves no leniency particularly when the victim was aged about five years like his daughter. Sentence of ten years cannot be termed excessive".