Latest news with #AmitSahrawat
Time of India
19 hours ago
- Time of India
Court Sentences Man to Life Imprisonment for Attempting to Murder Child in 2017
New Delhi: A Delhi court, while sentencing a man to life imprisonment for attempting to murder a 5-year-old child in 2017, observed that the conduct of the man did not deserve any leniency. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court of Additional Sessions Judge Amit Sahrawat, on June 4, noted that the man inflicted several stone blows on the head of the child and also gave multiple blade cuts on different body parts from head to toe, leaving him at the spot in a bloodbath to die. "Inflicting numerous blade marks all over a seven-year-old child's body, trying to batter his head with a stone, and leaving the minor to die in a pool of blood showed the man's 'barbaric mentality,'" the court said. The ASJ was hearing the arguments on the quantum of sentence against Mohammed Moi alias Mohit, who was sentenced under IPC sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 364 (kidnapping to commit murder). 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 multiple 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, the judge noted. Noting that aggravating factors against the man in the present case are the age of the victim child and the manner of committing the crime, the judge said that at the time of the incident in 2017, the victim child was aged about five to seven years. 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 child, thereafter leaving the child in a bloodbath at the spot.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Barbaric mentality, says Delhi court, gives life term to man for attempting to murder child
New Delhi, Inflicting numerous blade marks all over a seven-year-old child's body, trying to batter his head with a stone and leaving him to die in a pool of blood showed "barbaric mentality", a Delhi court said while sentencing a man to life imprisonment for the offences of kidnapping and attempt to murder. 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.
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.
