New Delhi: A Delhi trial court convicted Uber cab driver Shiv Kumar Yadav for rape and other sexual offences on Tuesday in a case based on the complaint of a 25-year-old Gurgaon-based finance executive. Under Indian criminal law, Yadav, 32, can get a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The conviction comes just a day after Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal said the Aam Aadmi Party-led government would ensure stricter laws to tackle crimes against women in the city. The government formed a two-member ministerial panel to suggest amendments to the law.

Yadav’s sentencing is scheduled for 23 October.

Additional sessions judge Kaveri Baweja, who presides over the fast-track court that deals with sexual assault, found Yadav guilty on all counts he was booked under. She had reserved the verdict on 7 October.

“...we’re pleased he has now been brought to justice. Safety is a priority for Uber and we’ve made many improvements—in terms of new technology, enhanced background checks and better 24/7 customer support—as a result of the lessons we learned from this awful case", said Amit Jain, president of Uber India, in a statement.

The victim of the assault had registered a first information report with the Delhi police on 6 December 2014 alleging that Yadav had raped her the previous night, after she’d availed of the US-based taxi aggregator service. He was arrested on 7 December.

Charges of causing grievous bodily harm while committing rape, voluntarily causing hurt, assault/attempt to commit theft of property and criminal intimidation were framed against Yadav by the trial court on 13 January.

Proceedings in the case were interrupted when Yadav moved the Delhi high court seeking to re-examine certain prosecution witnesses. This plea had earlier been rejected by the lower court.

The high court, on 4 March, recalled 13 witnesses who were to be cross-examined again. The 13 witnesses included the victim.

The Delhi police and the woman moved the apex court appealing this order. The Supreme Court, on 10 September, set aside this order saying that the high court had failed to give adequate reasons for allowing the re-examination of the witnesses.