A special Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act court in Mumbai has sentenced a 34-year-old man to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life on Thursday, July 30. The court used Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code.
This section has rarely been used, and it deals with repeat rape offenders. Special Judge Surekha A. Sinha held that the accused, identified as Sandesh Tanaji Thorat, poses a threat to society despite serving prison terms in two earlier rape cases. The court observed that his behaviour had not changed even after repeated imprisonment.
The conviction relates to the sexual assault of a nine-year-old girl in Chembur in October 2022. According to the prosecution, Thorat approached the child while she was walking and asked for her help to find another child. Then he took her to the terrace of a building, where he sexually assaulted her.
The prosecution relied on the testimony of the survivor, statements from independent eyewitnesses, the person who caught him while he was trying to escape, and forensic and medical evidence. The court found the evidence sufficient to convict him.
The court noted that Thorat had earlier been convicted in two separate rape cases. He had followed the same method in all three cases. The judge also pointed out that he was already under trial in a different sexual offence case at the Deonar police station just one month before the Chembur incident. The court said this showed that he was a habitual offender.
While delivering the sentence, the judge said the accused was a danger to the lives of women and girls. The court observed that India's criminal justice system believes in reform through punishment. However, it found that the accused had shown no change in his conduct.
The court held that the facts of the case justified punishment under Section 376E of the IPC. It sentenced Thorat to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The court also directed that all sentences awarded in the case would run concurrently.
Apart from the prison sentence, the court directed the relevant authorities to provide compensation to the victim as per the law.
The judgement also criticised the manner in which the prosecution initially handled the trial. The court said it had to reopen the prosecution's evidence because several material witnesses had not been examined. According to the court, special public prosecutor S.S. Shamkuwar filed a pursis seeking closure of evidence without examining those witnesses.
The judge described this as negligence on the part of the prosecutor. The prosecution was later taken over by prosecutor Jyoti Sawant, made the final arguments before the court.
Share
Tweet
