Convicting Vijay Jadhav, Qasim Shaikh and Salim Ansari under section 376 E on Thursday, principal judge Shalini Phansalkar Joshi said, "The section is not just for the purpose of repeat offenders, but to send a strong message to like-minded persons in society. The legislature wants that such tendencies are curbed."
Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said it would be premature to say if the prosecution would indeed seek the death penalty during the final arguments on the quantum of sentence on Friday.
"I welcome the order as it has long-reaching consequences and effects," Nikam told TOI. Following the arguments on Friday, the court will pronounce the sentence on the trio and one more convict, Siraj Khan, in the photojournalist case. The woman was brutalized on August 22 at Shakti Mills, where she had gone on an assignment with a male colleague.
The convicted trio remained stoic after the pronouncement at 1.30pm on Thursday. After their lawyers explained the verdict to them, their family members, who were in the courtroom, broke down.
The conviction comes two weeks after the judge found the three guilty in the gang-rape cases of the photojournalist and a telephone operator under section 376 D of the IPC. The judge sentenced Jadhav, Shaikh and Ansari to life imprisonment until death in the telephone operator case. Nikam immediately moved an application seeking section 376 E. The court framed the charge, following which the prosecution and the defence examined and cross-examined witnesses.
The defence argued that the convictions could not be called previous and subsequent when they were done only five minutes apart. Refuting the argument, the judge said it would be untenable to argue that the court pronounced both judgments simultaneously. "The legislature very wisely has used the word 'previously convicted'. The section does not say that the previous conviction has to be a day, a month or a year before the subsequent conviction. Previous conviction maybe a few minutes old, a day old or a decade old," the judge observed. "In this particular case, there was a previous conviction and a subsequent conviction and hence, the ingredient under the section is satisfied."
Defence advocate R G Gadgil submitted that the convicts had only one previous conviction (telephone operator case) against them, to which the judge said, "Repeat offender does not need to repeat the offence two, three or four times. If it was so the legislature would have said so."
The judge also denied that the addition of the new section should have resulted in an FIR. "The act does not create an independent offence, but calls for an enhancement of the punishment."
The judge also refuted the defence argument that the second offence was not committed after the convicts had served time following the first conviction. "The amendments were brought after deliberations and discussions. Therefore, it is not expected that after serving 20 years' imprisonment (under section 376 D) the convict will come out and commit another offence. If that interpretation is followed, then it will render the section meaningless and redundant," the judge said.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Three Shakti Mills rapist convicted as repeat offenders; may be given death
Dengan url
https://cegahkeropostulang.blogspot.com/2014/04/three-shakti-mills-rapist-convicted-as.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Three Shakti Mills rapist convicted as repeat offenders; may be given death
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Three Shakti Mills rapist convicted as repeat offenders; may be given death
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar