Shillong, April 9: The Meghalaya High Court in its order dated 05.04.2023 has dismissed the plea of former MLA of Mawhati, Julius Dorphang, who is serving a 25 year long imprisonment term for raping a minor.
The former MLA, who was also the former chairman of militant outfit HNLC, was sentenced to 25 years in jail and a fine of Rs. 15 lakh by a special court in Ri-Bhoi district for raping a girl in 2017 when he was a legislator.
Dismissing his plea, the principal bench consisting of Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice and Justice W. Diengdoh, in its order stated that Dorphang was 52 years of age and, “By imposing a sentence of 25 years of imprisonment, the trial court has ensured that by the time the appellant is let loose again in society his libido would have been sufficiently lessened by age and adequately chastened by the punishment. He will then no longer be able to unleash his lust or indulge in any further virile bravado.”
“The State will also be responsible for taking care of all the medical needs of the survivor free of cost and befitting a Grade-II officer of the State for at least the next 20 years,” read the order of the High Court.
It further said the fine, if paid, and a total amount of compensation not less than Rs.20 lakh, should be provided by the State to the survivor by way of investments that would mature on a periodic basis for her to receive the same. In other words, the State will pay a further Rs.5 lakh to the survivor by way of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.15 lakh that she receives from the fine.
“If the appellant does not pay the fine and serves a further five years of rigorous imprisonment, the State will make over the equivalent amount of Rs.15 lakh to the survivor. The total amount of Rs. 20 lakh must be invested in the name of the survivor within three months from date with the State taking adequate measures to ensure that the entire amount is not squandered in a hurry or the survivor is cheated of any part of it by any other person,” the order further stated.
In addition, the High Court has also directed that if there is any special programme or working opportunity that is available or for which the survivor qualifies or if there is any late education programme for women where the survivor may be accommodated, the State should provide all assistance to the survivor to lead a remaining normal and healthy life.
