Custodial sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction affirmed.

The appellant was convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, with three months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

The prosecution case was that the victim’s father reported that his approximately 16-year-old daughter had been lured away by an unknown person on the pretext of vaccination; she returned home about two hours later.

On appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction and sought reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, stating that he had been in custody since 22 August 2022.

1. Whether the conviction under Section 363 IPC should be disturbed despite the appellant not pressing the appeal against conviction.

2. Whether the custodial sentence and fine should be reduced in light of the period already undergone and the circumstances of the case.

The appeal was brought under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The conviction was for the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court relied on its assessment of the victim’s testimony, the other prosecution evidence, and the trial court’s findings in deciding whether the conviction disclosed illegality or perversity.

In considering sentence, the Court assessed the circumstances of the case and the period of imprisonment already undergone; it cited no precedent or further sentencing rule.

Although the appellant confined his submissions to sentence, the Court considered the victim’s deposition, the other prosecution evidence, and the trial court’s findings, and found no illegality or perversity warranting interference with the conviction.

On sentence, it considered the circumstances of the case and the period the appellant had spent in custody, and concluded that further detention would serve no useful purpose.

It therefore reduced the custodial sentence to the period already undergone and reduced the fine.

The fine was reduced from ₹5,000 to ₹200, with five days’ simple imprisonment in default of payment.

The appeal was partly allowed.

The Court directed the appellant’s release forthwith if he was not required in any other matter or case.