Premium
This is an archive article published on April 5, 1999

Couple convicted for sexual assault

NEW DELHI, April 4: More than eight years ago, a middle-aged couple lured two teenaged sisters at that time 16 and 18 away from home pr...

.

NEW DELHI, April 4: More than eight years ago, a middle-aged couple lured two teenaged sisters at that time 16 and 18 away from home promising one a job. The girls were instead taken to Vaishno-Devi, where the younger one was forced into a sexual relationship with the man. She was also forced to enact8217; a marriage ceremony with him. The couple kept pictures of the ceremony, threatened the sisters and told them not to tell anyone.

The sisters were so terrified that they did not speak of their trauma for a long time. Later in court, the couple defended themselves saying that the girls8217; 8220;silence8221; implied consent. This argument was, however, rejected by Additional Sessions Judge A.K. Garg.

While convicting Anil and Bharti Kohli for kidnapping the two sisters, the judge observed: 8220;An average Indian traditional girl is so afraid of social reactions that she often prefers to suffer in silence. And if an offender is eventually brought to trial, he asks the court to interpret the silence of the girl as signifying her consent.8221;

ASJ Garg has sentenced Anil Kohli to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and directed him to pay Rs 4,000 as fine, under the kidnapping and sexual assault sections. His wife Bharti Kohli has been sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment, and has been fined Rs 1,000.

The defence in its submission had said that the convicts had already suffered agony during the eight-year-old trial. 8220;It is also submitted that the convicts have a family and there is no history of previous conviction against them.8221;

The judge instead blamed the defence, partially, for dragging on the trial for so many years. 8220;They adopted dilatory tactics and now they cannot be heard to plead for a lenient view on that score,8221; the judge held, adding, 8220;the court cannot ignore the suffering of the child who became the victim of the convicts.8221;

The case dates back to July 14, 1990, when accused Anil Kohli took the sisters with him on 8220;a false pretext8221;. He lied to their mother saying that he had arranged an interview for the elder daughter, since she required a job. Instead, Kohli first took them to a restaurant in Karol Bagh and then later to Vaishno Devi. There the marriage of the younger daughter and Anil Kohli was enacted and their photographs were taken.

Story continues below this ad

This was the second time that the girl was reportedly forced to enact a marriage with Anil Kohli. Earlier, on May 26, 1990, Anil8217;s wife Bharti, took the girl to her house, served her an intoxicating drink. The girl says that over the next three days she was forced to have sexual intercourse with Anil.

When the two girls were later brought back from Vaishno Devi, they stayed at Sahni hotel for five days. Kohli later shifted them to the Jyoti Palace Guest House, Pawan Guest House and then to Manav Guest House. According to the victims, they reportedly spent about 11 days just shifting from one guest house to another.

On August 3, the elder daughter got an opportunity to escape. She managed to get back home and told her father about all that they had been through. Meanwhile, the younger girl was taken to Aggarwal properties in Rohini and then was made to stay in Jahangirpuri for two nights. On August 9, after she was moved to Karol Bagh, someone helped her escape.

According to the FIR that was lodged at the Punjabi Bagh Police Station, Bharti has been charged with helping her husband in the offence. She reportedly visited the guest houses and threatened the sisters against speaking to anyone about their ordeal.

Story continues below this ad

The younger girl was examined at Ram Manohar Lohia hospital, where doctors confirmed that the victim had been sexually assaulted. The report also said the girl was pregnant.

The prosecution examined 24 witnesses, including the victim herself. The victim, however, was not allowed to go through with her testimony, even though she was produced in court four times. Her cross-examination was deferred each time because the defence kept raising objections.

Later, it became impossible for the prosecution to procure the victim, since her family had moved without informing the police.

And when the defence contended that the cross-examination was never completed, the judge replied: 8220;The accused had not only the right but the opportunity to cross-examine the victim. On four dates, she was present in court and each time the defence did not cross-examine her.8221;

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement