Conduct In Jail Has Been Satisfactory: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Of POCSO Convict To 25 Years Of Actual Imprisonment Without Remission
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court whereby the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was upheld.
Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon a POCSO accused convicted in a case of rape to a fixed term of 25 years' actual imprisonment without remission. The Apex Court took note of the age of the accused, the fact that he had no antecedents and further his satisfactory conduct during custody.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court whereby the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was upheld. The sentence of life imprisonment until natural death, as awarded by the Trial Court, was also upheld.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan held, “However, considering the age of the appellant and also that there are no antecedents and further his conduct during custody has been satisfactory, the sentence of life imprisonment till natural death can be converted to limited period. We hereby reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to a fixed term of 25 years actual imprisonment without remission. This court can exercise such a power in view of law laid down in Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka.”
AOR Rajeev Kumar Bansal represented the Appellant, while Advocate Abhishek Pandey represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The FIR was registered against the appellant and after trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment until natural death by the Trial Court. In appeal before the High Court, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were upheld.
Arguments
The appellant sought a limited period sentence instead of life imprisonment till natural death. It was further submitted that the appellant has no other criminal antecedents, and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory, as there were no complaints against him during his period of custody.
On the contrary, the Counsel for the State submitted that it was a case in which the appellant spoiled the life of a minor girl who was merely 15 to 16 years of age at the time when the offence was committed. As per the State, the appellant did not deserve any leniency from the Court.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the appellant had been convicted under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment till natural death. The offence was also grievous.
Reference was made to the judgment in Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka. Considering that the accused had no antecedents and his conduct during custody was satisfactory, the Bench reduced the sentence awarded to the appellant to a fixed term of 25 years' actual imprisonment without remission.
Partially allowing the Criminal Appeal, the Bench modified the impugned order of the High Court.
Cause Title: Deepankar Tikedar v. State of Chhatisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1381)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Advocates Tanvi Nigam, Shefali Jain, Rajat Kumar, Dipesh Kumar, Manish Das, Mahendra Kumar Jain
Respondent: Advocate Abhishek Pandey, AOR Prashant Kumar Umrao