Affirming conviction under Section 366 IPC and POCSO Act while reducing sentence to period already undergone.

On September 24, 2016, the appellant intercepted the prosecutrix near Santosh Mata Mandir and forcibly took her into a jungle to commit rape. The act was interrupted when a third party arrived upon hearing the victim's alarms

The Tenth Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jabalpur, convicted the appellant on February 9, 2018, under Section 366 of the IPC (seven years RI) and Section 376/511 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act (five years RI)

The appellant served a total of approximately three years, two months, and 13 days in custody between 2016 and 2019

The appellant appealed to the High Court, choosing not to challenge the conviction on merits but seeking a reduction in sentence

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 366 IPC and Section 376/511 IPC r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence

2. Whether the substantive jail sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone given the mitigating circumstances, such as the lapse of time and the appellant’s conduct

Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel marriage or illicit intercourse

Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC concerning the attempt to commit rape

Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, relating to punishment for sexual assault

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the appeal and Section 428 regarding the set-off of the period of detention

The Court reviewed the testimonies of 12 prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence (Ex.P-1 to P-14), finding that the trial court had properly marshaled the facts to prove the incident in the jungle and the attempt to commit the offense

On the matter of sentencing, the Court noted that at the time of the 2016 incident, no mandatory minimum sentence was prescribed for the charged offenses

The Court weighed mitigating factors: the appellant was 30 years old at the time of the incident, he had no prior criminal record (first-time offender), he had cooperated throughout the decade-long proceedings, and he had already served over three years of actual incarceration

The Court determined that while the conviction was legally sound, the ends of justice would be satisfied by substituting the remaining jail term with an enhanced financial penalty

The substantive jail term was reduced to the period already undergone (approx. 3 years and 2 months)

The fine for the IPC/POCSO offense was enhanced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000, and for the Section 366 IPC offense from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000. The appellant was ordered to deposit the enhanced fine within two months or face the original default sentence

The appeal was disposed of, and the bail bonds were discharged