The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction of Dhanwant Singh, head of Dera Noor Vishav Ruhani Charitable Trust, for raping a woman at the dera in November 2000. Dismissing his appeal against the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the Bench held that there was “no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the victim.”The court also declined the victim’s plea for enhancement of the sentence from 10 years to life imprisonment. It, however, awarded her Rs 6 lakh in compensation for the trauma of sexual assault and her subsequent long quest for justice.Justice Ramesh Kumari passed the order while disposing of three connected matters arising from the common judgment of conviction and sentence dated January 29, 2005, passed by the Hoshiarpur Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court. He was accused of raping the woman during the intervening night of November 25 and 26, 2000.Justice Ramesh Kumari took note of the fact that the case involved a family that had been following the accused for years. Dhanwant Singh was a religious preacher at the dera and its chairman and trustee. The court recorded that “there is no denial of the fact that accused Dhanwant Singh was the head of dera Noor Vishav Ruhani Charitable Trust”.The victim’s father had been a dera follower for a long time and used to visit it. The victim secured admission to a nursing course in September 2000. After some time, she thought of dropping the course, but her parents were not in favour. The prosecution’s case was that she went to the dera on November 25, 2000, at her father’s instance so that she could be counselled. Her mother was already present there.She disclosed the incident to her father only on December 31, 2000, when she was again taken to the dera by her parents. Justice Ramesh Kumari observed: “The offence of rape is committed within the four walls of the room being away from the public gaze. The accused may have any number of devoted followers, but the accused would not have dared to violate anyone’s bodily integrity except a vulnerable one.”Justice Ramesh Kumari added that the accused picked the victim because her family had been known to him for the last 15-16 years and had been his followers since the establishment of the dera, which was the place where the crime occurred.“She was chosen as victim by the accused because accused thought that her family would not believe her words, that the accused could have sexually assaulted her because her family was already against her idea of dropping her studies. Thus, in these special family dynamics of the victim and vulnerable state of mind of the victim that the accused chose her to fulfil his lust and called her in his room and sexually assaulted her, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the victim.”The Bench was assisted in the matter by advocate Navkiran Singh, along with counsel Harmeet Singh, on the complainant’s behalf.Justice Ramesh Kumari also referred to the fact that the accused had been declared Tankhaiya by Shri Akal Takht Sahib — the “supreme temporal body in the Sikh religion”. The allegation against him in that context was that he was indulging in Manmatti, which comprised the consumption of liquor and meat.“The Sikh religion teaches a way of life where a person has a family life, owns land, has a profession and follows his passion,” the court observed, adding that Sikhism was based on “naam, sewa and ‘Kirt’”, meaning “recitation of hymns from Shri Guru Granth Sahib, doing service of mankind and to earn livelihood by honest means”.“In case any Sikh indulged in Manmatti, it is against the principles of the religion. The imposition of Tankhah by Shri Akal Takht upon the accused through hukamnama itself proved that accused was not leading a virtuous life as required under the Sikh tenets. Although in the hukamnama, he was declared Tankhaiya, it did not explicitly state that he indulged in immoral or unethical activities or was facing the allegation of rape,” the Bench observed, adding that the rape was committed away from public observation.Declining the prayer for enhancement of the punishment, Justice Ramesh Kumari added: “Eradication of criminal activity is an essential function of the State. Imposition of adequate sentence is required to stem out the crime from the society. Certainty of sentence is more important than severity of sentence to curb the crime. Therefore, this prayer made by the victim for awarding life sentence to the accused is declined.”Referring to the plea for compensation, Justice Ramesh Kumari observed: “After going through the impugned judgement, it has been transpired that no compensation has been awarded to the victim by the trial Court. The victim suffered trauma of sexual assault from the hands of accused and thereafter a long quest for justice. She is awarded Rs 6 lakh as compensation in terms of judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court.”