Indian Border Security Force DIG jailed for 10 years over occupied Kashmir sex scandal

Indian Border Security Force DIG jailed for 10 years over occupied Kashmir sex scandal

SRINAGAR - A special CBI court today sentenced five people, including a former Border Security Force DIG, to 10 years in prison in the 2006 Occupied Jammu and Kashmir sex scandal.

Pronouncing the quantum of sentence in a packed courtroom here, judge Gagan Geet Kaur said the convicts deserved no leniency. The court had held the five guilty on May 30.

The convicts were brought to the court under tight security. Some of their family members were present there.

Minor girls were pushed into prostitution in the scandal in which senior officials and politicians were alleged to be involved.

Those sentenced to rigorous imprisonment are former BSF deputy inspector general KC Padhi, former J&K deputy superintendent of police Mohammad Ashraf Mir and three others Masood Ahmad alias Maqsood, Shabir Ahmad Langoo and Shabir Ahmad Laway.

Any period spent by them in custody during the trial will be set off against their term of imprisonment.

The court came down heavily upon Padhi and Mir, saying such acts could not be expected from those the society regarded as its protectors.

The five were convicted under Section 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code which deals with the offence of rape.

The court also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh each on Padhi and Mir, ordering that they will undergo another year of rigorous imprisonment if they defaulted on its payment.

It slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 each on Masood Ahmad, Langoo and Laway, who will serve another six months in prison if they failed to pay.

The amount will be used as compensation for the loss of the victim's reputation and dignity, mental harm and loss of opportunity of education, the judge said.

"A victim of rape inevitably suffers acute trauma. Rape itself brings enormous shame to the victim," she said.

It was unfortunate that sexual violence against women still existed in the 21st century, the court observed.

The court rejected the contention by the convicts that they did not have knowledge of the age of the prosecutrix.