<p>The Delhi High Court has upheld a 10-year jail sentence awarded by a lower court to a man for raping a mentally challenged minor girl.<br /><br />Refusing to show leniency to Ashok, Justice S P Garg said that the victim's statement is in "consonance with medical evidence", therefore "there is no conflict between the ocular and medical evidence".</p>.<p><br />"The findings of the trial court are based upon fair and proper appraisal of evidence and warrant no interference. The victim was a mentally challenged girl aged about 12 years. The appellant (Ashok) was related to her. He betrayed the trust of the victim's mother. The sentence order thus needs no modification," the court said.<br /><br />The order came on the convict's appeal against the trial court April 2010 decision sentencing him to 10 years in jail for raping the minor.<br /><br />According to the prosecution, the accused on July 24, 2009 raped the girl while she was alone in her house.<br /><br />"Undisputedly, key of the room was with the appellant. He (the accused) did not offer any explanation as to why and under what circumstances, he opened it when other children had not yet returned from school," the police said.<br /><br />However, the accused contested the allegation, saying he has been falsely implicated at the behest of the victim's mother.<br /><br />The court, however, turned down his defence and said that the accused did not assign any strong motive of the victim or her mother to implicate him in the incident.<br /><br />"No witness in defence was examined to substantiate his defence. It requires outright rejection," the judge said.<br /><br />It further said that the court has no valid reasons to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix who did not nurture any grievance or animosity with the appellant prior to the occurrence and had absolutely no reason whatsoever to falsely involve him.<br /><br />"She had nothing to do with any personal rivalry between her parents and that of the appellant. Her evidence inspires confidence. Her testimony must be appreciated in the background of the entire case," the court added. </p>
<p>The Delhi High Court has upheld a 10-year jail sentence awarded by a lower court to a man for raping a mentally challenged minor girl.<br /><br />Refusing to show leniency to Ashok, Justice S P Garg said that the victim's statement is in "consonance with medical evidence", therefore "there is no conflict between the ocular and medical evidence".</p>.<p><br />"The findings of the trial court are based upon fair and proper appraisal of evidence and warrant no interference. The victim was a mentally challenged girl aged about 12 years. The appellant (Ashok) was related to her. He betrayed the trust of the victim's mother. The sentence order thus needs no modification," the court said.<br /><br />The order came on the convict's appeal against the trial court April 2010 decision sentencing him to 10 years in jail for raping the minor.<br /><br />According to the prosecution, the accused on July 24, 2009 raped the girl while she was alone in her house.<br /><br />"Undisputedly, key of the room was with the appellant. He (the accused) did not offer any explanation as to why and under what circumstances, he opened it when other children had not yet returned from school," the police said.<br /><br />However, the accused contested the allegation, saying he has been falsely implicated at the behest of the victim's mother.<br /><br />The court, however, turned down his defence and said that the accused did not assign any strong motive of the victim or her mother to implicate him in the incident.<br /><br />"No witness in defence was examined to substantiate his defence. It requires outright rejection," the judge said.<br /><br />It further said that the court has no valid reasons to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix who did not nurture any grievance or animosity with the appellant prior to the occurrence and had absolutely no reason whatsoever to falsely involve him.<br /><br />"She had nothing to do with any personal rivalry between her parents and that of the appellant. Her evidence inspires confidence. Her testimony must be appreciated in the background of the entire case," the court added. </p>