After attack,Rathore back in court today

The hearing was deferred last month after Rathore was stabbed outside the district court complex.

Now,the court will hear the case for three consecutive days till March 12.

In the appeal filed by the CBI on February 5,the agency has questioned the leniency showed to Rathore while sentencing him in the case.

On December 21 last year,CBI Special Magistrate had sentenced Rathore to six-month rigorous imprisonment for molesting Ruchika Girhotra.

Calling the sentence too little,the CBI appeal says,“Undue sympathy in passing inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and undermine the public’s confidence in it. As per the provisions of law,the maximum punishment for molestation under Section 354 of the IPC is a jail term of two years.”

The appeal further says: “The object of awarding sentence should be to protect the society and deter criminals…by imposing maximum sentence. It has been also said that the convict faces serious allegations of moral turpitude… Too lenient view has been taken by the trial court,which was not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.”

Also,Pankaj Bhardawaj,counsel for the complainant,has filed a revision petition,urging the court to review the order.

The petition has cited the SDM’s report in which Ruchika’s school has been held guilty of wrongfully expelling her.

“Although the CBI did not dig out the reason for expulsion of Ruchika…the court cannot lose sight of the fact that in the report filed by SDM (Prerna Puri) on October 8,2010,it has been mentioned that Ruchika was expelled due to extraneous pressure,” the petition reads.

Terming it as a “fight between unequals”,the appeal reads,“The case is a vivid example of persons like Rathore,who had considered themselves above law and tried to nail down every single person. Rathore got promotions in spite of the fact that the inquiry had indicted him.”

Rathore,on the other hand,has stated in his appeal that inquiry against him by the then DGP R R Singh was against the “rules of natural justice”.

“The trial court has wrongly held that the inquiry conducted by R R Singh was legal and he was the legally appointed person,” the appeal reads.

While the conviction order passed by the CBI court of J S Sidhu relied on statements of Anuradha,the sole eyewitness to the molestation incident,the trial court had failed to examine that the testimony of the sole eyewitness is unreliable because of material contradiction and the judgment and sentence cannot be based on it,Rathore’s appeal says.

The appeal goes on to say that the trial court failed to appreciate the defence,relating to fabrication of documents and forging of signatures.