Man gets 7-year jail term for physically exploiting girl on pretext of marriage | Kanpur News


Kanpur: Additional session judge of Fast-track court (number 41) on Thursday convicted one Dharmendra Vishwakarma for physically exploiting a girl under pretext of marriage and punished him with a sentence of 7 years imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 15,000.
The presiding judge in his order further observed that if the accused failed to pay the fine, then he had to suffer another jail term of six months. The period in which the accused was in the jail would be adjusted in the sentence term.
According to additional district government counsels Vinod Tripathi and Indralata Shukla, the complainant was the victim herself.
She had stated in her FIR that she was meeting with a boy named Dharmendra, a resident of Arra Bingawan, who promised to marry her. On February 3, 2013 her mother had visited Dharmendra’s residence and discussed the marriage issue.
But Arvind Vishwakarma, brother of Dharmendra demanded a sum of Rs 5 lakhs as dowry and in the absence of money there would be no marriage. Moreover, he threatened that if this conversation was leaked then she and other members of the family could not come out of the house. Arvind thereafter frequently visited her house and gave threats of life.
The ADGC stated that during the trial, the victim had adduced that Dharmendra had established physical relations with her under the pretext of marriage and had exploited her several times at different places.
The presiding judge in his observation stated that prosecution had successfully proved that the accused had physically exploited the victim and sought her consent under pretext of marriage. There was no free consent. The charges of dowry demand could not be proved. Therefore, accused Arvind Vishwakarma and others had been acquitted from dowry charges.
On the quantum of sentence, the defence pleaded that it was his first offence. He was already married and a liability to his family. Therefore, a lenient view should be adopted against him. On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the accused had deceived and exploited a girl which was an offence of serious nature. Therefore, he should be punished with stringent punishment.


Source link