South Goa Additional Judge Shirin Paul today pronounced the senesce of the Goan model Siddesh Juvekar in the Navelim girl rape and cheating case and sent him to the Colvale Jail. The term of the sentence as decided by the court sends the accused into seven years rigorous imprisonment in the orphan girl rape case and another three years term in the cheating case. The court has also directed the accused to pay compensation of rupees seven lakhs to the victim girl. Read the complete report here.
The Goan model Siddesh Juvekar who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Sherin Paul on 3rd September 2016 under the section 376 (Rape) and Section 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code has been sentenced today for the term of seven years rigorous imprisonment in the rape case and three years in the cheating case along with the fine of rupees seven lakhs towards the compensation to the victim girl. Siddesh has been sent to the Colvale jail immediately after the sentence was pronounced by the judge, said the sources.
It may be recalled that the Bombay High Court at Goa had set aside the order passed by the trial court discharging Siddesh Dashrath Juvekar, the first runner-up of the Mr India Manhunt Contest 2015 from the severe case of rape and cheating a Navelim based girl and had asked him to face the trial in the above two cases.
Accordion to the sources, Siddesh Juvekar who has been pursuing modeling as a career had represented Goa and was the first runner up at the ‘Mr. India Man Hunt’ contest held last year in Delhi by Sky Walk Entertainment. He is said to be a close relative of Senior BJP leader Pradeep Shet.
Siddesh Juvekar a resident of Betul, Goa and a well-known face from the modeling industry was charge sheeted on 13th, November 2013 under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code for raping and cheating a Navelim Girl. He was charged for having repeated sexual intercourse with the victim girl under the false promise of marrying her. He was also charged with cheating a victim girl and taking Rs. 5lakhs from her on the false ground of starting a business.
Later on Siddesh was discharged by the south Goa Additional Sessions Judge on 4th July 2014, without going through the trial. The final decision given by the Additional Sessions Judge provoked the victim to challenge it, moving to the high court.
Justice S.B. Shukre of the Bombay High Court at Goa allowed the victim girls petition setting aside the South Goa Additional District Judge’s order. They had directed the accused to appear before the Margao sessions court on March 14th for trial. As regulated by the High Court Siddesh Juvekar along with his lawyer appeared before Judge Sherin Paul and was directed to furnish a surety of Rs 25,000. Advocate Aires Rodrigues, who is representing the victim girl, moved an application to assist the prosecution.
During the hearing of the case, Victim’s counsel Advocate Aires Rodrigues submitted that the accused was discharged by the court ignoring the well-settled principles of law. He also argued that at the time of considering discharge of an alleged accused under Section 227 CrPC, it was not permissible for the Sessions Court to appreciate the evidence in a manner as to record findings on merits of the case.
On these charges, Juvekar’s lawyer submitted that space for the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and it is restricted only to examine the correctness and cannot be considered to be disclosing any offence. He also stated that on any of these restrictions no fault could be found with the questioned order. Advocate stated saying “…if the trial of the accused is held for the offences alleged against him, it would be nothing but an exercise in futility.” He also stated that complainant had involved herself in this acts which amounted to consensual sex.
On this urgings, Justice S B Shukre detected that the south Goa Additional Sessions Judge had committed illegality by discharging Juvekar and by neglecting the well-settled principles of law and further he also observed that such an order cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The order said that “Such an order cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The revision application is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The trial shall proceed in accordance with law.” It added further added that, “Considering the nature of controversy which appears to be going on since the year 2009, it would be in the interest of justice that it is put to an end at the earliest. Therefore, it is directed that the trial shall be decided on merits within six months from the appearance of the parties.”