Thursday, December 20, 2018

HC upholds death sentence of rape convict

Desh Deep
TNN | Jul 16, 2016, 10.46 PM IST

BHOPAL: Gwalior bench of high court upheld a rape convict’s death sentence that was passed by additional sessions court, Dabra. Confirming the death sentence, a divisional bench of the court observed, “Such heinous crime is highly deprecated and therefore we confirm the death sentence. The trial court has rightly punished the appellant.” The death sentence was confirmed on July 14. Government pleader BK Sharma said, “The case was very strong. The prosecution presented all the circumstantial evidences in chronological order before the court. The judges were satisfied and upheld the decision of the lower court.” 

Raju Batham, 25, of Dabra, a tehsil town of Gwalior, had raped and murdered an 8-year-old girl, also of Dabra, on September 20, 2014. The case led to lot of anger among the public in Dabra. Soon, investigation started and Raju was arrested. He was booked on charges of rape and kidnapping, among others, besides Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The trial took place on day to day basis and the court in Dabra passed death sentence on December 27, 2014. The divisional bench comprising Justice N K Gupta and Justice S A Dharmadhikari observed, “Raju is a matured youth of 25 years of age. The girl was 8 years of age who was incapable of arousing lust in normal situation. Raju had won the trust of the girl and she did not understand his desire.” In their order, the judges said, “The injuries caused to the deceased show the gruesome manner in which she was subjected to rape. Such cruelty towards a young child is appalling.” 

They also said, “...due to this act a message has gone in the public that girls of such age are even unsafe in moving in their locality and a crowd had assembled when the appellant had admitted his guilt. When the deceased had already suffered a great pain with crushed childhood, she was killed by throttling.” Confirming the death sentence, they also observed that under these circumstances, the present case falls within “rarest of rare case”.

Source: (Accessed 20 December 2018) 

No comments:

Post a Comment