<p>New Delhi: A court here has sentenced a man to rigorous imprisonment of 25 years for raping a two-year-old girl in 2021 while trashing his defence that he was under the influence of liquor while committing the crime.</p>.<p>The court said that being in an inebriated state was not a mitigating factor as no one forced him to consume alcohol and he consumed the drink voluntarily, that too on a ‘dry day’.</p>.<p>Additional Sessions Judge Babita Puniya was hearing the arguments on sentencing against the 26-year-old man, who was earlier convicted for the penal provision of rape and under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.</p>.<p>Special public prosecutor Sharawan Kumar Bishnoi said the convict did not deserve any leniency for the heinous act.</p>.Murder, not suicide: Five-year-old's sketch helps nab father for killing mom.<p>In its January 31 verdict, the court said, "For the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 25 years with a fine of Rs 5,000." It said the quantum of the sentence would "provide just retribution and adequate protection to the society, make the convict realise the gravity of his act, while also leaving scope for rehabilitation".</p>.<p>The court noted the argument of the defence counsel about the crime not being pre-meditated as the convict was under the influence of alcohol.</p>.<p>It said, "Admittedly the convict was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the commission of the offence. However, this is not a mitigating factor because it is not as if someone forced him to drink alcohol. He drank alcohol voluntarily, that too on a 'dry day'." The court also refused to grant leniency on the grounds that it was a case of digital rape and not penile-vaginal penetration.</p>.<p>"I do not agree. The legislature has not made any distinction between digital penetration and penile penetration. Penetration, as per rape law, can be penile/vaginal, penile/oral, penile/anal, object or finger/vaginal and object or finger/anal penetration," the judge said.</p>.<p>The judge also observed the victim had gone to play in a room where the convict sexually assaulted her.</p>.<p>ASJ Puniya said, "What was supposed to be a joyous day for the victim turned out to be a violent and traumatic one that would stay with her and her family for the rest of her life. I am of the view that though the suffering of the victim and her family cannot be compensated in monetary terms, it would provide financial solace to her." The judge then awarded her Rs 13.50 lakh compensation.</p>
<p>New Delhi: A court here has sentenced a man to rigorous imprisonment of 25 years for raping a two-year-old girl in 2021 while trashing his defence that he was under the influence of liquor while committing the crime.</p>.<p>The court said that being in an inebriated state was not a mitigating factor as no one forced him to consume alcohol and he consumed the drink voluntarily, that too on a ‘dry day’.</p>.<p>Additional Sessions Judge Babita Puniya was hearing the arguments on sentencing against the 26-year-old man, who was earlier convicted for the penal provision of rape and under Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.</p>.<p>Special public prosecutor Sharawan Kumar Bishnoi said the convict did not deserve any leniency for the heinous act.</p>.Murder, not suicide: Five-year-old's sketch helps nab father for killing mom.<p>In its January 31 verdict, the court said, "For the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 25 years with a fine of Rs 5,000." It said the quantum of the sentence would "provide just retribution and adequate protection to the society, make the convict realise the gravity of his act, while also leaving scope for rehabilitation".</p>.<p>The court noted the argument of the defence counsel about the crime not being pre-meditated as the convict was under the influence of alcohol.</p>.<p>It said, "Admittedly the convict was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the commission of the offence. However, this is not a mitigating factor because it is not as if someone forced him to drink alcohol. He drank alcohol voluntarily, that too on a 'dry day'." The court also refused to grant leniency on the grounds that it was a case of digital rape and not penile-vaginal penetration.</p>.<p>"I do not agree. The legislature has not made any distinction between digital penetration and penile penetration. Penetration, as per rape law, can be penile/vaginal, penile/oral, penile/anal, object or finger/vaginal and object or finger/anal penetration," the judge said.</p>.<p>The judge also observed the victim had gone to play in a room where the convict sexually assaulted her.</p>.<p>ASJ Puniya said, "What was supposed to be a joyous day for the victim turned out to be a violent and traumatic one that would stay with her and her family for the rest of her life. I am of the view that though the suffering of the victim and her family cannot be compensated in monetary terms, it would provide financial solace to her." The judge then awarded her Rs 13.50 lakh compensation.</p>