A man, convicted for molesting an eight-year-old girl over a decade ago, has been sentenced to 18 months in jail by a Delhi court which refused to release him on probation, observing that offences against minor girls are on the rise in the national capital.
Metropolitan Magistrate Ekta Gauba handed down the jail term to Delhi-resident Ishaq for the offence punishable under section 354 (molestation) of the IPC and also directed him to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the victim.
"In view of the fact that the offences against minor girls are on an increase in the city and it is a well-known fact that it is a serious public order problem if minor girls being tenants are not safe even on the roof of their house in the night from other tenants, Ishaq does not deserve the benefit to be released on probation.
"I am of the considered view that interest of justice will be served if he is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of eighteen months and to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 to the victim," the magistrate said.
The court relied on the testimonies of the girl and her parents, saying they were "clear, reliable and convincing".
"Victim has vividly narrated the whole incident in court, stood the test of cross-examination and correctly identified the convict who misbehaved with her...Testimonies of all witnesses are clear, convincing and reliable," it said.
According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of August 6-7, 2003, the girl was sleeping on the terrace of her rented house while her parents were on a lower floor.
On seeing her alone, Ishaq, who was also residing as a tenant in the same building, molested the girl, it said, adding that when the minor raised an alarm, her parents and other people nearby gathered and beat him up.
A complaint was lodged the next day and Ishaq was handed over to the officials of Patel Nagar Police Station.
During the trial, he had denied the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated as the victim's father wanted to grab his room.
The court, however, rejected the convict's claim that he was falsely implicated by the victim's parents as they wanted to occupy his room.
"No motive on the part of the victim or her parents to falsely implicate is proved by him. Thus, the prosecution was able to prove that he assaulted or used criminal force upon the victim with an intention to outrage her modesty," it said.
