Latest news with #VineetDahiya
Time of India
16-07-2025
- Time of India
Court awards seven years jail to man for sexually assaulting granddaughter
New Delhi: Awarding seven years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) to a 59-year-old man for sexually assaulting his granddaughter in 2022, a Delhi court observed that young girls and children living around us need to be protected, and such reprehensible acts do not deserve any kind of leniency. The court of additional sessions judge Ankit Mehta, in a July 9 order, said that the present case calls for the law to be applied with full force so that a message may go out to society that such acts shall also face consequences and sentencing acts as a deterrent. The court was hearing the arguments on sentencing against the man, a retired govt official, who was earlier convicted for the penal offences of disrobing, outraging a woman's modesty, causing hurt, and criminal intimidation, along with Section 10 (aggravated sexual assault) of the Pocso Act . According to the prosecution, he repeatedly subjected her to an inappropriate oil massage too. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi Additional public prosecutor Vineet Dahiya said the convict did not deserve any leniency as he sexually assaulted or harassed the 10-year-old girl for over eight months, causing her immense mental trauma. The man used to give oil massages to his minor step-granddaughter with sexual intent and he also used to beat the minor and criminally intimidate her not to disclose the same to anyone, the judge noted. Stating that the minor was under the care and protection of her step-grandfather, the court sentenced the latter to seven years of RI under Section 10 of the Pocso Act. The judge also awarded seven years RI under IPC Section 354B (assault or use of criminal force to a woman with the intent to disrobe), five years RI under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), two years RI under Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and one year RI under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt). The court said that the sentences would run concurrently. The court also awarded compensation of Rs three lakh, saying the girl suffered immense mental trauma due to the incident and needed financial help for her well-being.
Indian Express
28-05-2025
- Indian Express
Delhi court grants POCSO accused bail after notice not served to him, ‘warns' police to be careful in future
A Delhi Court last week granted bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor under the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing procedural lapses by the police. 'As per this reply, the notice u/s 35(3) BNSS was served to the father of the accused. The considerable fact is that notice is required to be served to the accused, and if the accused is not traceable, then it would be served to any of his family members. In the present matter, there is no such fact on record that the accused was not traceable…,' said Additional Sessions Judge Amit Sahrawat of Rohini Court in his order dated May 24. Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita states that a 'police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1) issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.' The prosecution, which was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Vineet Dahiya, submitted before the court that they had arrested the accused because he didn't have a place to stay in Delhi, and he didn't cooperate in the investigation. They also argued that he could threaten the victim. 'Regarding the grounds of arrest, it is observed that the father of the accused was traceable… The accused could appear for investigation on same day of serving notice, and thus there is no merit in the ground that there was no proper place or address of the accused,' the court said 'warning' the investigating officer, station house officer, and assistant commissioner of police 'to be careful in future'. 'As far as it is concerned that the accused was not disclosing facts about the incident, then it is the fundamental right of the accused to remain silent as per Article 20 of the Indian Constitution,' the court observed.
