Man sentenced to seven years for raping 13-year-old

The police subsequently arrested Sharma, rescued the girl and registered a case (FIR no. 95/94) under Sections 366 (kidnapping a woman) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.

The girl told the court that she was on her way to buy kerosene when she met Sharma who forced her to come with him, saying he would kill her uncle if she didn’t. He took her to Rajasthan, while promising to provide her with better food and nice clothes. It was here that he raped her repeatedly for three days and beat her, the girl told the court.

Sharma next took the 13-year-old to Muzzafarpur, where he kept her for a month in his parents’ house. When his parents told him to take her back home, he moved out of the house, rented another place and continued to rape her every day, the victim testified. She said she endured all this because Sharma said he would sell her into prostitution if she tried to escape.

When Sharma ran out of money, he brought her back to Delhi. The two were spotted by neighbours at Indira Market in Shalimar Bagh. The police finally tracked them down on June 13, 1994.

Sharma admitted to having sexual intercourse with the teenager, but maintained right through that he never rapedÿher. He said that he was in love with her that he had her mother’s consent; and that they were married and lived with the girl’s motherÿfor a year and a half. Sharma also said that the girl’s mother soon started demanding money from him, which is when he and the girl ran away to Bihar.

But the girl told the court that her signature on the affidavit — stating she and Sharma were married and giving her age as 21 — was obtained by coercion. She also said that Sharma bribed a lawyer to prepare the affidavit.

The ASJ had to determine whether the girl had been kidnapped through criminal intimidation and then forced to marry Sharma. And secondly, that she had been raped.

In his 17-page order, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Raghbir Singh stated: “…women in our society…have been the victims of tyranny at the hands of men with whom they, under the Constitution, enjoy equal status. Women have the right to life and liberty…they alone have the talents and capacity to shape the destiny and character of men anywhere”.

The Supreme Court (State of Maharashtra versus Chander Prakash Jain) is clear on one point: “A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated on material particulars”.

In another judgment (State of Punjab versus Gurmeet Singh), the Supreme Court had ruled: “The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitates looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence.” The ASJ also said that since the girl was 13 years at the time, it was immaterial whether she had consented to intercourse or not, as the law states that having sex with a woman below 16 years is rape.

Sharma pleaded for a lenient view, saying he was poor and had to support his aged parents. The ASJ said: “The object of sentencing is to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of the crime, as also the society, has the satisfaction that justice has been done”.