The sessions court on Thursday found the three of the four Shakti Mills gang-rape convicts guilty of the additional charge of 'repeat sexual offenders', thereby making it easy for the prosecution to seek death penalty for the three.
The court, presided over by principal judge Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, upheld the prosecution's arguments, thereby maintaining that slapping the accused with the section 376 (E) of the IPC, which deals with the additional charge, would restrict "like-minded people" from committing similar offences. The arguments on sentencing have been adjourned to Friday.
Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, while advancing with the final arguments on the application of section 376 (E), said, "The prosecution had examined two witnesses in the case — one the investigating officer in the telephone operator gang-rape case and the other a court official. Both, in their deposition, had informed the court that convicts Vijay Jadhav, Salim Ansari and Kasim Shaikh alias Bangali were convicted in the August 22 gang-rape case. This clearly proved that the accused were convicted and sentenced in the August 22 gang-rape case and were also found guilty in the July 31 photojournalist gang-rape case, thereby attracting section 376 (E)."
Nikam further argued that the evidence produced by the prosecution was more than enough to prove that the three can be slapped with the amended section. "The main purpose of the legislature in amending section 376 (E) is (for it) to act as a deterrent to other people, who have (a) similar mindset of committing atrocities against women," he added.
The defence opposed slapping of the new section by claiming that the police had not mentioned about it during the time of registering an FIR. The defence also claimed that judgments in both gang-rape cases were delivered on the same day and that too with a time gap of 20-25 minutes, and, thus, such a situation does not attract the application of the section.
The court, however, upheld the arguments made by the prosecution. "The main reason why there was an amendment in the section was to act as a deterrent for like-minded people (sic)," held the court.
The court further maintained, "The legislature very wisely has used the word 'previously convicted'. The section does not say that the previous conviction has to be a day, a month or a year before the subsequent conviction. Previous conviction maybe a few minutes old, a day old or a decade old. The fact that it was a previous conviction was sufficient to prove the charge and, in this particular case, there was a previous conviction and a subsequent conviction and, hence, the ingredient under the section is satisfied (sic)."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}