New Delhi, March 28: A 21-year-old man, convicted of rape, has been awarded life imprisonment by a fast track court here which refused to show leniency towards him saying the crime committed by him was "grave" and "serious". The court also awarded a compensation of Rs two lakh to the victim, who was a toilet cleaner at a place of worship here, considering "the gravity of offence, mental and physical trauma, her social status and financial condition and the need for rehabilitation."

Additional Sessions Judge Renu Bhatnagar sentenced Imran, a vegetable vendor while holding him guilty of raping the woman after gagging her, and threatening to kill her. "Considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the convict is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 376 (rape) of the IPC," the judge said, adding that his act does not deserve leniency.

"Convict raped the unknown prosecutrix which cannot be ignored by the court and his act does not deserve any leniency," the judge said. It directed the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA), South East District, to compensate her. The court decided the case in favour of the victim while relying on her testimony and medical evidence.

"In the present case, there is consistency in the statement of the prosecutrix. There is nothing on record to disbelieve her statement more so when the same is corroborated by medical evidence," it said. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on August 22, 2015, when she was walking towards her workplace in south-east Delhi to begin her duty at 8 am.

She claimed that she was passing through a jungle, which was a preferred route for many people, but she lost her way. Suddenly, Imran came and caught hold of her, the complaint said. He dragged her, and after gagging her committed rape. The accused also threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone, but the victim ran towards a nearby bus stop where she fainted, and a person, who saw her, informed the police. During the trial, the accused denied the allegations and claimed he was falsely implicated. The court, however, said, there was no reason for her to falsely implicate him.