AKSHAY KUMAR ALIAS MANDA ALIAS PANKU vs STATE OF HP

2026:HHC:19420
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2021
Reserved on: 24.3.2026
Date of decision: 25.5. 2026
Akshay Kumar alias Manda …Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. …Respondent.
Corum
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant. Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr.J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Appellant has filed this appeal against judgment dated
24.9.2020 passed by Special Judge Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions
Trial No. 039/2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Akshay Kumar
@ Manda @ Panku, in case FIR No. 125 of 2015, registered in Police
Station, Lambagaon, District Kangra, H.P. under Section 4 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 14:00:50 :::CIS

2   2026:HHC:19420 
Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2021
High Court of H.P.
under Section 3(a) (XII) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby appellant though has been
acquitted of the charges of offence punishable under Section 3(1) (XII) of
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
however, has been convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and has
been sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine
of 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
₹
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and simple imprisonment for 6
months under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. On 24.3.2026 during hearing, learned counsel for the
appellant, under instructions, had submitted that appellant would not
contest the appeal on merits, but only qua quantum of sentence imposed
upon him in sequel to impugned judgment. Thereafter appeal has been
heard on quantum of sentence imposed upon the appellant.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
for commission of offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, punishment
has been provided under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, wherein it has been
provided that sentence under this Section shall not be less than 10 years,
which may extend to imprisonment of life and convict shall also be liable to
pay fine.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
imprisonment for 10 years under Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 14:00:50 :::CIS

3   2026:HHC:19420 
Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2021
High Court of H.P.
prescribed after amendment carried out vide Amendment Act No. 25 of
2019 w.e.f. 16.8.2019 and, therefore, for offence punishable under Section
4 of the POCSO Act, prior to the aforesaid amendment, minimum
prescribed sentence would be 7 years. It has been submitted that
appellant, including his judicial custody as an undertrial prisoner for 2 years
7 days and in custody as convict w.e.f. 25.9.2020 to 23.3.2026, i.e. 5 years,
5 months and 29 days, has completed total imprisonment of 7 years 6
months as on 23.3.2026.
5. It has been submitted that offence in present case has been
committed in October, 2015, whereas minimum sentence of 10 years has
been provided w.e.f. 16.8.2019 and, therefore, in present case minimum
prescribed sentence would be 7 years instead of 10 years. He has
submitted that keeping in view the entire facts of the case and
pronouncements of the Courts, age of the victim as well as convict,
sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced to minimum
prescribed sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment. He has submitted
that keeping in view age of the appellant and the fact that there is no
adverse report against him during detention as an undertrial prisoner as
well as a convict, there is possibility of reformation and, therefore, the
sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced.
6. The Apex Court in Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 443, has observed as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 14:00:50 :::CIS

4   2026:HHC:19420 
Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2021
High Court of H.P.
“60. Considering the above, we, while affirming the view taken by the
courts below with regard to the conviction of the appellant for the offences
charged against him, deem it proper to commute, and accordingly
commute the sentence of death for the sentence of imprisonment for life,
for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Since, Section 376-A
IPC is also applicable to the facts of the case, considering the gravity and
seriousness of the offence, the sentence of imprisonment for the reminder
of the appellant’s natural life would have been an appropriate sentence,
however, we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said---“The only
difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past
and every sinner has a future.”
61. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by
this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to
repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual,
when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed
may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled
psyche of the offender. Hence, while balancing the scales of retributive
justice and restorative justice, we, deem it appropriate to impose upon the
appellant-accused, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty
years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the
offence under Section 376-A IPC. The conviction and sentence recorded
by the courts for the other offences under IPC and the POCSO Act are
affirmed. It is needless to say that all the punishments imposed shall run
concurrently.”
7. The Apex Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2012 (2) SCC 648 has reiterated that there is no straitjacket
formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The Courts have
evolved certain principles. Twin objective of sentencing policy is deterrence
and correction, the sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case and the Courts must keep in mind
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 14:00:50 :::CIS

5   2026:HHC:19420 
Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2021
High Court of H.P.
the gravity of crime, motive for crime, nature of offence and all other
attending circumstances.
8. In Dev Narayan Mandal Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (7) SCC
257 , the Apex Court has held that sentence awarded should be neither
excessively harsh nor ridiculously low, while determining the quantum of
sentence, the Court should bear in mind the principle of proportionality and
sentence should be based on the facts of a given case, and gravity of
offence, manner of commission of offence, age and sex of accused should
be taken into account and decision of the Court in awarding sentence
cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.
9. Admittedly, in present case victim was, about 17 years old and
appellant was 18 years old at the time of commission of offence. It has
come in evidence that after violating the victim, appellant met with PW-2
Vikas alias Kaku, Surinder, Rahul and Naveen alias Dhanu, who were
discussing that one lady was searching for her daughter, who had gone
missing and the accused/appellant told them that one girl was found by him
near Sari Molak School and he further told that he had informed the mother
of the girl from his mobile and he again requested to inform the mother of
the girl, whereupon appellant contacted mother of the girl and in response
mother of the girl had asked him to detain the girl there. Thereafter
appellant alongwith Vikas, Surinder, Naveen alias Dhanu went towards Sari
Molak School in vehicle of Rahul and Akshay (Appellant) picked the girl and
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 14:00:50 :::CIS

6   2026:HHC:19420 
Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2021
High Court of H.P.
made her to sit in the vehicle and they started back towards bus stand.
On the way they were stopped by another vehicle in which mother and
maternal uncle of girl were going to search the girl and they took the girl out
of the vehicle of Rahul and left the place in their vehicle. It has also come
in evidence that after the incident suggestions were being given to marry
the girl and the appellant with each other, but mother of the appellant
refused to accept the said proposal and ultimately FIR was lodged.
10. At the time of commission of offence, appellant had attained
the age of majority after his adolescent stage just few months ago from the
incident. Victim had to about one year to attain the age of discretion.
Victim after the incident, accompanied the appellant, in a Car of Rahul
alongwith appellant and there were suggestions to marry the victim and
appellant with each other and, therefore, possibility of romantic relationship
between them cannot be ruled out. However, for minor age of victim the
consent was and is immaterial. The victim was adolescent and for violating
the minor girl, appellant has been treated as an offender and rightly so in
view of provisions of POCSO Act.
11. Taking in view the entire facts and circumstances, we are of
the considered opinion that prayer of the appellant to reduce his sentence
to the minimum sentence provided for commission of offence under Section
4 of POCSO Act can be acceded to.
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 14:00:50 :::CIS

7   2026:HHC:19420 
Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2021
High Court of H.P.
12. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the appellant under Section
4 of the POCSO Act is reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith
fine of 20,000/- and sentence awarded for 6 months under Section 506 of
₹
the Indian Penal Code is not altered. The said sentence has run
concurrently. However, appellant has already completed more than 7½
years imprisonment, therefore,remaining period of sentence shall be taken
into consideration against the imprisonment for default in depositing the fine
of 20,000/-.
₹
13. Accordingly, upholding the conviction of the appellant, appeal
is dismissed, but with modification of quantum of sentence in aforesaid
terms and appellant if not warranted in any other case shall be released
immediately.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
(Ranjan Sharma),
Judge.
th
25 May, 2026
(Keshav)
::: Downloaded on - 25/05/2026 14:00:50 :::CIS