Staff Reporter

ITANAGAR, 2 Oct: A court in Arunachal Pradesh has sentenced a police personnel to life imprisonment for abetment of rape in a 2011 case in which a minor boy and girl were forcibly made to have sexual intercourse inside a police station, while the act was recorded on a mobile phone and subsequently circulated among the public.

Sessions Judge, Yupia, Hirendra Kashyap sentenced Rajesh Nayam to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 after finding him guilty of abetment of rape under Sections 376 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In default of payment of the fine, Nayam will have to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months, according to the sentencing order passed on 14 September.

The victims' side was represented by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) H. Nikang, while advocate T. Pabin appeared for the convict.

Nayam was produced before the court from District Jail, Jully, for pronouncement of the sentence. The court heard the defence counsel, the SPP and the convict before deciding the quantum of punishment.

The case arose out of DRJ Police Station Case No. 20/2011 and was tried as Sessions Case No. 211/13 (YPA).

According to the court order, Nayam, along with other accused persons, had forcibly taken the minor boy and girl from the roadside and brought them to Daporijo police station in Upper Subansiri district, where they were physically assaulted and forced to have sexual intercourse.

The court further recorded that the act was filmed using a mobile phone and the video was later circulated among members of the public as MMS.

Referring to the video evidence, the court observed that the accused persons could be seen in police uniform forcing the minor boy and girl to perform the sexual act.

The court took a stern view of Nayam's conduct, observing that as a police personnel on duty, he was entrusted with the responsibility of providing safety and security to the public but had instead misused his official position.

It termed the act "heinous" and held that Nayam did not deserve any leniency while being sentenced.

The prosecution had sought the maximum punishment prescribed under law, arguing that the offence was particularly serious because it involved police personnel apprehending the victims and forcing them to perform a sexual act while in police custody and within the premises of a police station.

SPP Nikang submitted that Nayam was a police personnel on duty and had a solemn responsibility to provide safety and security to members of the public. His involvement in the offence while discharging his duty made him undeserving of any leniency, the prosecution argued.

Seeking a lesser sentence, Nayam's counsel told the court that the convict had minor children and ailing parents and was the sole earning member of his family. Prolonged incarceration would adversely affect his family, the defence submitted.

Nayam also pleaded for mercy, telling the court that he had been discharging his official duty along with the other accused persons and that whatever he had done was on the instructions of his senior officers. He also pointed out that he was the only person convicted in the case while the other accused had been acquitted.

The court, however, rejected the plea for leniency.

It observed that the offence of rape had been abetted through threats and physical assault by police personnel and was committed on the premises of a police station.

The court held that Nayam was liable for punishment prescribed for rape since the offence was committed as a consequence of his abetment.

It further held that Nayam was not entitled to relief under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Probation of Offenders Act.

The court ordered that the eight months and 26 days Nayam had already spent in custody during the investigation and trial be set off against the sentence under Section 428 of the CrPC.

It also directed that a copy of the judgment be provided to him free of cost and informed him that he could challenge the judgment before the Gauhati High Court within the prescribed limitation period.

Copies of the order were also directed to be forwarded to the district magistrate and the superintendent of police (SIT), Police Headquarters, Itanagar.