Court upholds jail term of man convicted of molesting minor

A Delhi court has refused to set aside the jail term awarded to a convict for molesting a seven -year-old girl, saying the fact that she gave her statement in writing as it "made her fearful" about testifying "negates the grant of any leniency" to him.
District and Sessions Judge Anu Malhotra dismissed the plea of convict Madan Lal against a trial court's order sentencing him to two months in jail for the offence of molestation under section 354 of IPC.
"In the circumstances of the case, where the allegations are proved against the appellant of molestation of a minor to the extent that it made the child fearful and brought her to shame that she was unable to testify in court and had to give her written deposition on a piece of paper, negate the grant of any leniency whatsoever.

"Rather, the sentence imposed by trial court sending him only to two month's imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC, is lenient enough," the judge said.
The judge also noted that the child had identified the convict in court and there was no reason to disbelieve her.
"The court is of the considered view that the testimony of the child brings forth the veracity of the allegations levelled against the applicant and there is no reason to disbelieve her or her parents...

"There is no ostensible reason for which the parents of the minor would put the honour and reputation of the child at stake," the judge said.

According to prosecution, Lal, who was residing in the same building as the victim in south Delhi, molested her on May 31, 2010 when she was playing nearby.
The girl came home crying and narrated the incident to her mother, who lodged a police complaint, it said.
Lal was arrested and after trial, he was sentenced to jail by a Mahila Court here in 2014.
The convict, resident of south Delhi, in his appeal, had sought setting aside of the trial court's April 2014 order on sentence contending that there was no independent witness to support the prosecution case and he was falsely implicated.

The court, however, rejected his contentions and relied on the statement of the child and her parents saying there was no previous enmity or reason for them to implicate the convict.