Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
»
1-min read

Watchman Gets 7-year Rigorous Imprisonment for Sodomising Minor boy in Thane

After hearing both the sides, the judge rejected the defence counsel's argument that the accused was falsely implicated in the case due to a dispute with the boy's father.

PTI

Updated:May 20, 2019, 11:23 AM IST
facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp
Watchman Gets 7-year Rigorous Imprisonment for Sodomising Minor boy in Thane
Representational Image.
Loading...

Thane: A court here has awarded seven years' rigorous imprisonment to a 34-year-old watchman of a housing complex for sodomising a minor boy in 2015.

District Judge H M Patwardhan pronounced the order last week, convicting the accused, Sunil alias Sahil Ramprakash Upadhyay, under section 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

According to the prosecution, the accused sodomised the boy, then aged 10 and living with his parents in a housing society in Mira Road area here, on September 22, 2015, after calling him to his security cabin in the building.

The accused was arrested following a complaint lodged by the boy's father.

The prosecution urged the court to award maximum punishment to the accused without taking any lenient view.

After hearing both the sides, the judge rejected the defence counsel's argument that the accused was falsely implicated in the case due to a dispute with the boy's father.

"Considering the nature of the offence and its impact on the victim, in my opinion, the order would serve the purpose," the judge said while pronouncing the punishment.

| Edited by: Ahona Sengupta
Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp

Live TV

Loading...
Countdown To Elections Results
  • 01 d
  • 12 h
  • 38 m
  • 09 s
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results