The Delhi High Court Thursday refused to set aside the conviction of a man for raping a woman and inserting sticks in her private parts before he strangled her.
The high court upheld the man’s conviction saying the forensic evidence, including DNA analysis, clinch the case of the prosecution that the man did commit rape.
”Thus these two clothes … as per DNA analysis, clinch the case of the prosecution that appellant committed the rape of the deceased, brutally inserted sticks in her vagina and anal cavities, tied her and strangulated her to death,” a bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Poonam A Bamba said.
The high court, in its judgement, said it finds that the circumstances cited by the prosecution without fail proves beyond reasonable doubt the murder and rape of the victim by the convict.
Kerala businessman dies by suicide, family alleges harassment by K’taka-based private bank
HC refuses to review order awarding Rs 2 crore to army officer in defamation case against Tehelka
”Hence, this court finds no error in the impugned judgement of conviction,” it said. The high court’s verdict came on a plea by convict Ram Tej challenging his conviction and life imprisonment awarded by a trial court in May 2018 after holding him guilty for the rape and murder of the woman, who was in early thirties.
Considering the nature of offence, the bench also issued notice to the man seeking his response as to why his sentence be not modified to a fixed term as per the judgement of the Supreme Court.
It directed the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to produce the man in court on Friday.
According to the prosecution, the woman’s husband had in January 2015 reported her missing when she did not return home from work.
The next morning, police found the half naked body of the woman with her neck and legs tied with a cloth in a nursery in Fatehpur Beri area in South Delhi.
During the investigation, it was revealed that there were frequent calls between the victim and the accused. The man was tracked down and arrested on the basis of the call details.
In his defence, the man claimed that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the trial court erred in convicting him and that his appeal be allowed.