No leniency to convict for ‘digital rape’ of 2-year-old: Delhi court

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court, while sentencing a man to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment for committing aggravated sexual assault on a two-year-old girl in 2021, ruled that no lenient view could be taken on the plea that it was a case of digital penetration and not penile-vaginal penetration.
The court of Additional Sessions Judge Babita Puniya (POCSO) rejected the submissions of the defence counsel, who argued that since it was a case of digital penetration and not penile-vaginal penetration, a lenient view should be taken while imposing the sentence.
The judge stated, "I do not agree. The legislature has not made any distinction between digital penetration and penile penetration. Penetration, as per rape law, can be penile/vaginal, penile/oral, penile/anal, object or finger/vaginal, and object or finger/anal penetration. Thus, in my considered view, this is not a mitigating factor in his favour."
The court also refused to consider chronological age, being a first-time offender, being under the influence of alcohol, and being illiterate/uneducated as mitigating factors while sentencing the convicted man.
The court convicted the man on Jan 17, 2025, for the offence punishable under section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act as well as under section 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement)/376-AB (punishment for rape on a woman under 12 years of age) IPC.
Sharawan Kumar Bishnoi, special public prosecutor, urged for the maximum punishment and submitted before the court that the sentences imposed should send a clear message to potential offenders that these offences would not be tolerated in our society. He asserted that considering the nature of the offence, wherein a girl child, aged about two years, was sexually assaulted by a fully-grown man, the question of showing any leniency was not warranted.
Refusing to be convinced by the argument of the defence counsel that a long-term prison sentence would not lead to the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender, the court said, sentencing is about achieving the right balance between the crime and punishment, and the elements at play are the crime, the offender, and the interests of society.
The court stated, "After these cases, certain amendments were made in the existing law. However, a court must not be swayed by the emotions of society, ignoring the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Thus, this court will approach the sentencing of the convict on the basis that it is in the interest of justice that crime should be punished and that such punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence since excessive punishment does not serve the interest of justice nor those of society."
The court awarded compensation of Rs 13.5 lakh to the victim.
Sentencing the convict, the court remarked, "This will provide just retribution and adequate protection to society, make the convict realise the gravity of his act, while also leaving scope for rehabilitation."