A High Court of India made a light sentence on rap prisoners and reduced the sentence from 10 years to 3 years.

Jimu Journalist Li Lili

Intern Yang Shaopeng

According to the Indian Express report on August 10, the Indian Madras High Court reduced the sentence of four rapists from 10 years to 3 years for "for sufficient and special reasons". In 2006, the four Indian men were accused of raping a minor girl.

Madras High Court (Picture Source: India Express)

At the same time that the judge reduced their sentence, the four men also allowed the four men to appeal. Four men intend to overthrow the decision passed by the Mashra court in March 2013.

The rape traitory traced back to 2006.

In December 2006, Saravanan, an absconding man, deceived a 16 -year -old girl who wanted to make a movie into a private house. At that time, there were two other men in the room. After drinking cold drinks for her, the girl was in a semi -coma state, and was then sexually assaulted by the three people.

Mannibara and another man also sexually assaulted the girl in another case ...

It was not until 2013 that the victim's family reported that they were arrested by the Indian anti -porn team. Five men committed a crime of rape, but the verdict was different.

The trial court determined that three of them had crimes stipulated in Article 376 of the Criminal Law and convicted them in March 2013. Each person was fined 15,000 rupees (about 1275 yuan) and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

However, the judge subsequently stated that for full and special reasons, the court could judge any imprisonment of 3 people for less than 10 years.

Among them, the 4th man in the case, Manbaradi, pointed out that because Manbaradi had committed rape in his house, it was not punished by Article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Gangsa behavior.

The judge said that the fifth man Lamu was not the defendant in the case and dealt with Lamu's case separately.

Four men, including Manbarati, all appealed, and they asked for the revocation of the trial made by the court in March 2013.

The judge of the Malaysian High Court who was re -examined believes that because the defendant did not argue in the litigation procedure of Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Law, he did not argue that he did not know the age of the victim, but only denied the evidence of sin. The understanding is achieved through reasoning.

The judge said: "Considering the above facts and the above reasons, the court will change the 10 -year imprisonment to 3 years in prison and impose a fine of 15,000 rupees when exercising the power given by Article 376 of the Criminal Law."

- END -