Thane, Aug 29 A special court in Thane has convicted a 27-year-old man and sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl under the pretext of marriage and threatening her family in a 2020 case, noting that a minor's consent is immaterial.
Special Judge G T Pawar on Friday held Aniket Rajesh Nishad guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, along with sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court also imposed a cumulative fine of Rs 11,000 under the POCSO Act and sections of the IPC, while sentencing Nishad to rigorous imprisonment of one year. Both the sentences will run concurrently.
The amount collected through the fine will be paid to the victim as compensation, the judge said while directing the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Thane, to grant additional compensation.
According to the prosecution, the victim met Nishad in July 2020 during a family function in Wagle Estate area of Thane city. Between August and November 2020, Nishad repeatedly called the minor to a room in his building and committed penetrative sexual assault after threatening to harm her family.
The victim disclosed the ordeal to her mother on December 1, 2020, leading to the registration of an FIR at Shreenagar police station.
The defence contended that the relationship was consensual. Citing COVID-19 lockdown restrictions to counter the prosecution, Nishad’s lawyer said public movement was rendered impossible during that period.
However, the special judge rejected the defence's arguments.
"The impression expressed by the medical officer, though mentioned as impression, can be considered as her opinion. Moreover, her evidence is corroborative in nature and not substantial... The admission given by Prosecution witness about impression can not impeach credit of the Prosecution witness," the court stated.
The judge noted that since the age of the victim at the time of the incident was below 18 years, her consent is immaterial.
"The contention of the accused that at the time of the incident, there was lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic and there were restrictions on movement cannot be considered," the court said.
