Barbaric mentality, says Delhi court, gives life term to man for attempting to murder child
Additional Sessions Judge Amit Sahrawat was hearing the arguments on the quantum of sentence against Mohammed Moi alias Mohit, who was convicted under Indian Penal Code sections 307 and 364 .
In an order dated June 4, the court said, "The aggravating factors against the convict in the present case are the age of the victim child and the manner of committing the crime. At the time of the incident , the victim child was aged about five to seven years and the convict gave several stone blows to the head of such a minor child, and also gave several blade cuts to the body of the said child and thereafter, left the child in a blood bath at the spot."
Expressing anguish, the court wondered how the convict, a father of three children, attempted to murder the child in such a "brutal manner".
"The act of giving several blade marks on the face, shoulder, hand, legs etc. of the minor child shows the barbaric mentality of the convict, and it also shows the heinousness of the offence.
When the victim child was called in court for final compensation, even after about eight years of the incident, he was afraid of the convict and apprehensive that he could come and cause injuries to him.
He was continuously weeping in the court due to the convict's fear, the court said.
It said the convict did not deserve leniency on the grounds of his poor financial condition and future prospects of his children and needed to be dealt with an "iron hand".
The court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the offences.
Regarding the aspect of compensation, the court noted the submissions of the victim's elder brother and grandmother that since the day of the incident, the victim was continuously undergoing mental trauma and was in perpetual fear that the convict could come at any time and cause injuries to him.
"From the submissions, this court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for compensation," the judge said, directing the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to award suitable compensation to the child.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Man gets rigorous life term for burning wife to death in 2014
Kaushambi (UP), Aug 12 (PTI) A district court here sentenced a man to rigorous life imprisonment for burning his wife to death over a decade ago, an official said. The court of Additional District Judge (III) Shireen Zaidi found Om Prakash guilty and also imposed a fine of Rs 25,000. Additional District Government Counsel (Criminal) Anil Kumar Chaudhary said that on July 5, 2014, complainant Chhatrapal Singh filed a written complaint stating that his daughter Urmila Devi (32) was burnt to death by her husband Om Prakash. Based on the complaint, a case was registered under Section 302 (murder) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed in court. Chaudhary said that the accused, Om Prakash, was found guilty and on Tuesday, the court sentenced him to rigorous life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000. PTI COR KIS HIG HIG view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Scroll.in
8 hours ago
- Scroll.in
SC grants protection from arrest to ‘The Wire' editor in FIR over Operation Sindoor article
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted protection from arrest to The Wire 's founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan and members of the foundation running the news outlet in a first information report filed by the Assam Police, Live Law reported. The case was registered at Morigaon police station on July 11 under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. It followed the publication of an article about Operation Sindoor titled ''IAF Lost Fighter Jets to Pak Because of Political Leadership's Constraints': Indian Defence Attache'. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which owns The Wire, and Varadarajan, challenging the constitutionality of Section 152. The petitioners argued that the law was a repackaged version of the colonial sedition law. The bench issued a notice to the Union government and tagged the plea with another petition challenging the validity of the provision. Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the provision was vague and broadly worded, creating a 'chilling effect' on expression, particularly affecting the media's right to report and question the government, Live Law reported. However, the bench asked whether the potential for abuse of the law could be a ground to strike down a provision. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reportedly asked whether the media should be treated as a separate class. In response, Live Law quoted Justice Bagchi as saying: 'That's not what is being sought. It's about balancing the fundamental right to free speech with the protection of public order.' Justice Kant observed that when the alleged offence relates to articles published by a news outlet, custodial interrogation may not be necessary, Live Law reported. The petitioners said the news article was a factual report of a seminar organised by a university in Indonesia and statements made by Indian defence attaché on the military tactics used during Operation Sindoor. They added that the article also carried the Indian embassy's response to the defence attaché's remarks, which had also been reported by several other news outlets. The registration of the FIR was 'an abuse of the process of law' and an attempt to muzzle press freedom, the petitioners said. In May 2022, the Supreme Court had ordered proceedings and criminal prosecutions for sedition under Section 124A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code to be kept in abeyance. Critics have argued in the Supreme Court, in a separate matter, that Section 124A was slipped in again into the law in the guise of Section 152 when the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the Indian Penal Code in July 2024.
Hindustan Times
9 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Tamil Nadu poet's ‘Lord Ram lost his mind' remark sparks row; BJP reacts
A speech by a Tamil lyricist and poet Vairamuthu on Lord Ram at a literary programme has sparked political controversy, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) accusing him of hurting Hindu sentiments. Vairamuthu sparks row with 'Lord Ram lost his mind' remarks(File Photo) Speaking at an event where he received an award named after medieval Tamil poet Kambar, who authored the Tamil version of the epic Ramayana, Vairamuthu said Lord Ram 'lost his mind' after separating from his wife, Goddess Sita. Vairamuthu said, 'After being separated from Sita, Ram lost his mind, not knowing what he was doing. Under the IPC (Indian Penal Code) Section 84, an act committed by a person due to mental derangement or unsoundness of mind does not constitute an offence.' "Kamban may not have known the law, but he knew society and the human mind," he said in the event with Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin in attendance. "Ram is fully acquitted, forgiven – making Ram a human being, and Kamban divine," he added. Reacting to the remarks, BJP leader CR Kesavan posted on X: 'Vairamuthu Ramasamy is a disgusting repeat offender when it comes to insulting sacred Hindu deities and grossly abusing Hindu Dharma. Now Vairamuthu who ironically in his name has 'Rama' perversely misinterpreting the Kamba Ramayana has called Lord Rama mentally unstable.'
