Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1381
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5028 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.9598 of 2025)
DEEPANKAR TIKEDAR … Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATISGARH … Respondent
ORDER
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
1
2. In the present appeal, the judgment of the High Court in
CRA No. 1916 of 2023 dated 25.09.2024, has been impugned, whereby
conviction of the appellant under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal
2
Code, 1872 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
3
Offences Act, 2012 was upheld. Sentence of life imprisonment until
natural death, as awarded by the Trial Court, was also upheld.
3. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 08/2022 dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.12.04
18:52:25 IST
Reason:
04.05.2022 was registered against the appellant for the offences
1 High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
2 Hereinafter, “IPC”
3 Hereinafter, “POCSO Act”
1
committed under Section 375 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO
Act. After trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 376(3) of the
IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to life imprisonment
until natural death by the Trial Court in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case
No. 29/2022 vide judgement dated 13.07.2023. In appeal before the
4
High Court, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were
upheld.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he does
not wish to contest the conviction of the appellant. However, in the light
of facts and circumstances, indulgence is sought from this Court for
awarding a limited period sentence instead of life imprisonment till
natural death. He further submitted that the appellant has no other
criminal antecedents and his conduct in the jail has been satisfactory as
there have been no complaints against him during his period of custody.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted
that it is a case in which the appellant has spoiled the life of a minor girl
who was merely 15 to 16 years of age at the time when the offence was
committed. Considering the aforesaid fact, the appellant does not
deserve to be granted any leniency by this Court.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant records.
4 Criminal Appeal (CRA) No. 1916 of 2023
2
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein has 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 is also grievous. 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.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, the criminal appeal is
partially allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is
modified to the extent mentioned above.
9. Pending application also stands disposed of.
.........................................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
..........................................J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
November 25, 2025.
3
2025 INSC 1381
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5028 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.9598 of 2025)
DEEPANKAR TIKEDAR … Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATISGARH … Respondent
ORDER
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
1
2. In the present appeal, the judgment of the High Court in
CRA No. 1916 of 2023 dated 25.09.2024, has been impugned, whereby
conviction of the appellant under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal
2
Code, 1872 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
3
Offences Act, 2012 was upheld. Sentence of life imprisonment until
natural death, as awarded by the Trial Court, was also upheld.
3. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 08/2022 dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2025.12.04
18:52:25 IST
Reason:
04.05.2022 was registered against the appellant for the offences
1 High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
2 Hereinafter, “IPC”
3 Hereinafter, “POCSO Act”
1
committed under Section 375 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO
Act. After trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 376(3) of the
IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to life imprisonment
until natural death by the Trial Court in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case
No. 29/2022 vide judgement dated 13.07.2023. In appeal before the
4
High Court, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were
upheld.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he does
not wish to contest the conviction of the appellant. However, in the light
of facts and circumstances, indulgence is sought from this Court for
awarding a limited period sentence instead of life imprisonment till
natural death. He further submitted that the appellant has no other
criminal antecedents and his conduct in the jail has been satisfactory as
there have been no complaints against him during his period of custody.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted
that it is a case in which the appellant has spoiled the life of a minor girl
who was merely 15 to 16 years of age at the time when the offence was
committed. Considering the aforesaid fact, the appellant does not
deserve to be granted any leniency by this Court.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant records.
4 Criminal Appeal (CRA) No. 1916 of 2023
2
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein has 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 is also grievous. 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.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, the criminal appeal is
partially allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is
modified to the extent mentioned above.
9. Pending application also stands disposed of.
.........................................J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
..........................................J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
November 25, 2025.
3