‘Bhai turned predator’: Delhi court jails man for 25 years for raping minor at home

Additional Sessions Judge Babita Puniya of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), said the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. (Image enhanced using AI)

Interest of society: Court

• Certain rape cases like Nirbhaya rape case gained spotlight amongst the media, which resulted in hue and cry among the society.
• After these cases, certain amendments were made in the existing law.
• However, a court must not be swayed by the society’s emotions and ignore the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
• Court to approach the sentencing of the convict on the basis that it is in the interest of justice that crime should be punished.
• Such punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence since excessive punishment does not serve the interest of justice, nor that of society.

Story of trust, its collapse

At the heart of the case lies a deeply unsettling narrative. A minor placed in a household out of trust and familiarity, only for that very trust to be shattered.

The child’s mother and the convict’s mother were friends. The girl’s mother accepted the other woman’s request to have her daughter live with their family as she did not have a daughter of her own.

“Convict grossly abused his position of trust. The 13-year-old girl used to call him ‘bhai’- a word that should mean safety, care and brotherly protection. Instead, he betrayed that trust and scared bond,” the Delhi court noted. It found that this environment became the setting for repeated abuse of the child. The matter surfaced only after medical intervention led to mandatory reporting, underscoring how such crimes often remain hidden until circumstances force disclosure.

The Delhi court noted the troubling reality that systems of protection sometimes activate only after significant harm has already occurred.

Courtroom battle: Leniency vs deterrence

During sentencing, advocate Suraj Prakash Sharma, appearing for the convict before the Delhi court, said the 29-year-old accused is a first-time offender with no criminal past, highlighting his age and modest background while seeking a reduced sentence.

The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rajiv Kamboj, however, pushed back strongly, arguing that the severity of the offence and the breach of trust involved left no room for leniency. It relied on forensic and documentary evidence, stressing that even when witnesses turn hostile, material evidence can speak decisively.

Advcocate R R Jha, appearing for the survivor, reinforced this stance, pointing to the lasting emotional and psychological consequences and urging the court to send a clear message against such crimes.

Court’s tough stand

In a carefully reasoned order, the Delhi court laid out the factors that shaped its decision:

• The survivor’s young age and vulnerability.
• The accused’s position of trust within the household.
• The serious physical and psychological impact of the offence.
• The clear imbalance in age and power between the two.

The Delhi court firmly rejected arguments that factors like lack of prior criminal history or limited education could soften the punishment. It reiterated that offences against children strike at the very core of societal values and must be dealt with accordingly.

Sentence: Punishment, rehabilitation

The Delhi court sentenced the convict to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000, with additional imprisonment in case of default.

It also awarded Rs 14.5 lakh as compensation to the victim. The amount is designed to support her recovery and future rehabilitation, with provisions to ensure long-term financial security.

Beyond verdict: Message to society

While acknowledging the possibility of reform, the Delhi court emphasised that justice must first reflect the seriousness of the crime.

It cautioned against letting emotions alone dictate sentencing, but equally stressed that crimes involving minors demand a strong and clear judicial response.