Lenient View Can Be Taken: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence Of Man Accused Of Attempting To Sexually Abuse Minor To 1 Day
The Kerala High Court observed that a “lenient view can be taken” after considering the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence.
The Kerala High Court reduced the sentence imposed on a man accused of attempting to sexually abuse a 12-year-old minor boy to one day.
The Court observed that a “lenient view can be taken” after considering the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence. The accused had filed an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, who was convicted under Sections 377 and 506 Part II of the IPC by the Trial Court. The Prosecution alleged that the accused had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with a minor boy aged 12 years, and threatened to harm his sister if he disclosed the incident.
A Single Bench of Justice CS Sudha stated, “Even if the entire allegations…are taken to be true, the offence under Section 377 IPC would not be made out. At best the allegations would only make out an offence under Section 511 of Section 377 IPC.”
Advocate P Venugopal represented the Appellant, while Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The accused argued that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted as true, the offence under Section 377 IPC was not made out, as there was no evidence of penetration or commission of carnal intercourse.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the accused was 19-years-old at the time of the commission of the offence and considered whether the probation provisions under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (PO Act) could be invoked.
The Bench held, “I do not think that the benevolent provisions require to be invoked because not only was there an attempt to commit an offence under Section 377 IPC but also threatening the victim with dire consequences. Of late offences of this nature, that is, sexual offences against children and women are on the increase. Hence invoking the provisions of the PO Act may send a wrong message to society at large.”
Consequently, the Court held, “However, considering the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence and the nature of the offence made out from the materials on record, a lenient view can be taken. The interest of justice can be met by adequately compensating the victim. Hence the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court and to payment of compensation of ₹25,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.”
Cause Title: Ajeesh @ Ajeeshkumar v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:18631)
