Pronouncing the orders here today, UT Additional District and Sessions Judge S. S. Lamba directed convict Mela Ram, a resident of Mauli Jagran complex, to undergo a further six months' RI in case of default of payment of fine. The conviction finally came after examining of 11 witnesses.

Mela Ram was earlier booked by the Chandigarh police under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint of Jagat Ram, the girl's father.

In his complaint lodged on September 19, Jagat Ram, also a resident of Mauli Jagran and a next-door neighbour of the accused, said that Mela Ram came to his house during his absence and took away his daughter by enticing her with a promise to give her biscuits.

Jagat Ram added that the accused had intended to indulge in immoral acts with the child which was clear from the state of her clothes. He further stated that the accused also admitted having attempted to rape the girl-child and apologised for his act before the panchayat.

In his judgment, the judge also hauled up the police officers for "failing in their duties of not lodging the FIR in time", as the same was lodged after nine days after the complaint was made.

The accused defended himself in view of the late FIR being lodged. He also pleaded being not guilty and instead claimed that he was being framed in the case since he had a dispute over the construction of a common wall with the complainant. The accused also pleaded that since the wife of the accused Pushpa Devi was not paying him the amount due for the common wall, she had threatened him with dire consequences.

The counsel for the accused also pleaded leniency on behalf of his client, who stated that he was a poor man and had a large family to support and that he had an aged father to look after. The prosecution, however, maintained that considering the intensity of the crime, the accused should not be granted any concession.

After considering the arguments put forth by both the parties, the judge maintained that the accused had attempted to rape the child and thus held him guilty under Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC.