Muzaffarnagar: A special Pocso court in Muzaffarnagar sentenced a 40-year-old man to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for kidnapping and raping a 5-year-old relative in 2024 while her parents were away at work. The court relied on the child’s testimony and medical evidence, rejecting the convict’s claim that he had been falsely implicated due to a family land dispute.
Special Pocso judge Manjula Bhalotia pronounced the verdict on Wednesday, convicting the man under BNS Sections 137(2) (kidnapping) and 65(2) (rape of a girl under 12), and Sections 5(m)/6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault and punishment) of the Pocso Act . Additional district govt counsel (ADGC) Vikrant Rathi said, “The court also awarded him seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping and imposed a fine of Rs 60,000. The incident occurred on Nov 10, 2024, when the man took the girl to his home, where he raped and threatened her.
She returned home crying and injured and told her mother about the assault, following which the family approached police. The court also observed that there was nothing to suggest she had been coached.
During the trial, the child testified before the court, which found her account credible and supported by medical evidence.
The court directed that the entire fine of Rs 60,000 be paid to the survivor as compensation and asked the district legal services authority to take steps to provide her further compensation under the victim compensation scheme. You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Agra | Silver Rate in Agra | Bank Holidays in Agra | Public Holidays in Agra | Agra AQI | Weather in Agra | Petrol Price in Agra | Diesel Price in Agra | CNG Price in Agra | LPG Price in Agra Stay updated with the latest Agra news. Download the TOI App.
Because of a land dispute between the two families, as the convict and the child’s father were cousins, the defence argued that the man had been falsely implicated. It also claimed that he was at his maternal uncle’s house when the crime took place. However, the court rejected both arguments, finding the defence evidence unreliable and noting that there was insufficient independent or documentary evidence to support his claims.