In a shocker being reported from Bengal, a boy has been sentenced to five years of imprisonment and has further been slapped with a fine of Rs 9,000 for sharing the explicit photographs and videos of a girl. The accused has been identified as B.Tech student from Panskura, who uploaded the pictures of a girl he met on the internet. Taking the cognizance of the sensitivity of the matter, the judicial magistrate Gautam Kumar Nag has directed the state to treat the victim as a rape survivor. The magistrate further ordered the state to pay the compensation accordingly. The sentence was awarded by a court in Tamluk, East Midnapore.
Reacting on the reports, the advocate of the case stated that the complaint was filed against the accused, Animesh Boxi, and he was later arrested on July 21, 2017. After the case was registered, the hearing began which later ended on February 28, 2018. Reports suggested that the case was later taken up by the CID, which had appointed advocates Bisvas Chatterjee as a public prosecutor. Further disclosing the matter, the public prosecutor claimed that the girl complained that she knew Boxi for past three years and trusted him. The girl alleged that Boxi had promised to marry her and following which she shared her personal photographs, videos with the accused.
Later, the accused blackmailed the girl stating that he would make the photos and videos public if she will not have physical relations with him. After the girl refused, the man made the person photographs public. The advocate told the court that it was the case of revenge pornography and the girl underwent virtual rape every time somebody clicked on one of her photographs. Acting swiftly in the matter, the CID submitted the charge sheet against the accused in just 42 days. However, the charges were framed after 50 days. The public prosecutor further highlighted that this was the first conviction in the state in such a case.
Fighting back, the girl underwent the rigorous cross-examination in court and gave honest statements in the court. The public prosecutor said, “We cited nearly 300 judgments of the Supreme Court and over 200 electronic and non-electronic evidence were exhibited”.