"Most serious, diabolic": Allahabad High Court upholds man's conviction for mutilating genitals of 4-year-old girl

The Allahabad High Court on Friday upheld the conviction of a man who severely mutilated the genitals of a four year old girl after having attempted to rape her [Ishrat v State]..Justice Krishan Pahal, while upholding the conviction, observed that this was one of the most serious and diabolic offences committed against a minor girl of tender age. "The said offence has been committed out of severe sexual lust and sadistic approach. The appellant does not deserve any kind of leniency as the said case stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence adduced," the court recorded. .The offence happened in 1988, after which the trial court found the accused guilty for the offences of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means and outraging a woman's modesty under Sections 324 and 354 the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment..While hearing the appeal against this conviction, the single-judge also took a poor view of the State for not having appealed against the leniency in the trial court's order sentencing him to such a short term. "The lethargy of the public prosecutor is highly deplorable," the Court said..On examining the evidence, the Court found that the case had been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. "The accused-appellant deserved harsh punishment for the diabolic offence committed by him which depicts his depraved mental status," the Court stated..On the issue of discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the Court noted that this was natural and it was settled law that when an untutored witnesses gives evidence, contradictions are bound to creep in."The witnesses have not been examined in Court immediately after the offence. They have been examined after about two years of the occurrence and some trivial and minor contradictions are natural to come up in their statements as they are not bound to possess a photographic memory," the judge explained further..Therefore, considering the facts of the case, statements of the witnesses, relevant case law and the fact that the offence of mutilating the private parts of a minor girl could not be termed as an act of a person of normal virtues, the appeal was dismissed..The appellant was represented by Advocates SR Verma and Aarushi Khare while the State was represented by Advocate Vinod Kumar Singh Parmar..[Read Judgment]