New Delhi: A 45-year-old man has been sent to jail for 10 years for raping and trying to strangulate a woman with a Delhi court terming his act as "barbaric, diabolic and disturbing".
The court described as "vile" the act of the convict, a Delhi resident, while observing that the woman was subjected in 2014 to one of the most "reprehensible" crimes.
"The convict in this case has committed the vile act of rape upon the prosecutrix. He also attempted to kill her. It is true that he has a family to support but we must see the plight of the woman, who was subjected to rape, which is universally considered to be amongst the most morally and physically reprehensible crimes in society...
"It is an assault on the body, mind, privacy and the entire fabric of the victim. Her dignity is shredded. The social stigma attached to this crime is such that many a time, a crime would go unreported by the victim," Additional Sessions Judge Sanjiv Jain said.
The court held the convict, who was the driver of the victim's in-laws, guilty of offences of rape and attempt to murder under the IPC and observed that "he had grudges against his employers and he was looking for an opportunity" to take revenge from them.
"It is true that the woman did not sustain injuries on the vital parts of her body but the facts and circumstances lead to the conclusion that the accused had attempted the said act with the intention to cause her death.
"His act was barbaric, diabolic and disturbing. I agree with the submissions of prosecutor that it is not necessary that every attempt to kill would result into injuries," the judge said.
The court also said that some minor discrepancies in the victim's statement and complaint were not fatal to the case.
"I do not consider such omissions as fatal as it is the settled law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of facts. It is not expected of a victim to disclose all the finer aspects of the incident in the FIR...
"The victim who suffers from an incident, obviously, is in a state of shock and it is only when she moves in her comfort zone, she starts recollecting the events one by one and thus to stop the victim from elaborating the facts to describe the finer details, if left out earlier, would be too much," the ASJ said.
According to prosecution on June 24, 2014, the woman, who was living alone in a house, alleged that the driver came to her house asking for water but pounced on her from behind. He tried to strangulate her with a phone charging cable and then raped her, the woman's complaint said.
Additional Public Prosecutor Mohd Iqrar had sought maximum punishment for the convict while arguing that he does not deserve any leniency and that he went to the woman's house under the influence of liqour and attacked her.
The man had denied the allegations against him and claimed he was falsely implicated by the woman. The court, however, relied on the testimony of the victim while observing that "a person with so much trauma cannot be expected to state the incident in a parrot-like manner".
"Such like omissions/contradictions are bound to happen. In the instant case, there are factual and circumstantial evidence which prove the complicity...(of the convict). As such no value can be pinned on insignificant omissions/ contradictions," it said.