Pune court sentences Budhwar Peth woman to one year for confining Nepali woman in 2007
A Pune court has given a 48-year-old woman one year of rigorous imprisonment for wrongfully confining a 19-year-old Nepali woman in a Budhwar Peth room in 2007.
Images are not validated/verified
A court in Pune has sentenced a 48-year-old woman from Budhwar Peth to one year of rigorous imprisonment. She was accused of unlawfully confining a 19-year-old woman from Nepal in a room in Budhwar Peth. The case dates to 2007, when police raided a building in the red-light area and rescued the young woman.
An additional sessions judge delivered the verdict in the nearly 19-year-old case. Maya Rambahadur Thapa, a resident of Budhwar Peth, was convicted under Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with wrongful confinement for a prolonged period. Along with the one-year term, the court imposed a fine of Rs 10,000. If she does not pay the fine, Thapa will have to serve a further six months in prison.
The case began with information received by police that a young woman from Nepal had been brought to Pune on the promise of marriage and was being forced into prostitution. Acting on this tip, Faraskhana police raided the fourth floor of Ashok Building in Budhwar Peth on March 1, 2007. Several other women were rescued along with her.
During the trial, however, the prosecution could not prove the charges of abduction and forced prostitution, owing to a lack of evidence. The court said there was no recorded statement from the victim that would show who brought her from Nepal or who lured her with the promise of marriage.
There was another lapse by the investigators. They did not seize documents showing ownership or rental of the room. This left gaps in the evidence placed before the court.
Even so, the evidence that was available showed that the young woman had been kept in the room against her will. On this basis, the court held Thapa guilty of wrongful confinement under Section 344 of the IPC and sentenced her.
The verdict makes clear that the charges that could not be proved at trial were set aside. The court convicted only for the offence that the evidence established, namely wrongful confinement.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first.