Picture for representational purpose only.

NEW DELHI: In a case where the accused called the rape survivor a “prostitute”, a court recently rejected the claim and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment . “Offence of rape is gravest. The same has been committed on a woman who was young at the time of the incident,” the court said. It also said that the accused used the term “prostitute” in the most “irresponsible manner”, without any legal basis.

Also, in order to provide restorative and compensatory justice, the court directed that the woman be paid Rs 5 lakh as compensation.

The survivor alleged that accused, Mumtaz Ali , who was running a tailoring shop nearby, raped her on two occasions in March, 2015 when she was alone at home. On the first occasion, Ali had threatened the survivor saying he would kidnap her children. She later called her husband’s factory, where the factory owner asked her to inform the police. The woman thought it necessary to inform the police thinking that her daughter is a minor and that Ali should not make advances at her.

The prosecution, in order to prove the charges, examined 15 witnesses. The accused, meanwhile, claimed that the woman is a prostitute and extorts money from people. He examined three witnesses in his defence and alleged that the survivor had illicit relations with the factory owner. On one hand, there was an allegation of her having illicit relations, and on the other, the accused claimed he had not committed rape and termed the woman a “prostitute”.

There were also contradictions if the survivor had called the police or one of the prosecution witnesses, who is the woman’s neighbour.

“I find that such contradictions are not material and do not have bearing on the core of the prosecution story. Issue for consideration in this case is not as to who called the police, but basic point of determination is as to whether the prosecutrix has been a victim of sexual assault or not,” observed the court.

It also came on record that the husband of the survivor came to the accused’s house and demanded Rs 5 lakh for “settling” the matter and the accused’s wife even reportedly paid half the sum. The evidence regarding the same could not substantiated by the defence.

“I, therefore, find that the convict is not at all entitled for any leniency. Therefore, I sentence the accused for rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs 10,000 under Section 376 of IPC,” held additional sessions judge Shailender Malik.

