Delhi: Court sends photographer to jail for 10 yrs for raping woman
New Delhi: A photographer has been sentenced to 10 years in jail by a Delhi court on Thursday for raping a married woman and threatening to show the videos and photographs to her relatives incase she spoke about the incident.
The court ruled against the 33-year-old-man saying it is clear that the convict had sexually assaulted her when she was living in her matrimonial home while her husband was working abroad.
It also said that "she (victim) had separated from her husband due to the incident. Minor children of the woman have been separated from the company of their father as a result of the sexual assault committed upon her and the behaviour of the convict i.e. post incident," Additional Sessions Judge Shail Jain said.
The court also rejected the man's argument that the woman had induced him by hugging him on karvachauth in her husband's absence, by saying that it showed the "trust and confidence" reposed by the woman on him, which he betrayed by sexually assaulting her.
According to the prosecution, the woman and her family knew the man before the incident as he had worked for the family as a photographer. The convict had repeatedly contacted the woman after her marriage and used to call and threaten her if she refused to meet him.
The prosecution also said that, in July 2011, the man had come to the victim’s matrimonial house when she was alone and raped her. He made a video of the incident which he used to threaten her with, if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
It said the man had repeatedly raped the victim. When her husband returned to Delhi, he became suspicious, leading to a matrimonial dispute following which the woman was thrown out of the house.
Apart from the sentence, the court had also imposed a fine of Rs 30,000 on the west Delhi resident Shambhu Jha. Out of the amount, Rs 20,000 compensation would be given to the victim.
During the trial, the man had denied the allegations against him and claimed that he was implicated in the case.
The court rejected the man's argument that there was an unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR in January 2013.