Karnataka HC Upholds Conviction For Raping Minor, Cuts 22-Year-Old First Offender’s Life Sentence To 10 Years After 9 Years In Custody

The prosecution alleged that on 19 December 2012, the appellant restrained and raped the victim, who was about 11–12 years old.

The victim’s mother lodged a complaint after a delay of three days; the prosecution attributed the delay to the police initially refusing to register the complaint and the family approaching village elders and senior police officials

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 341 and 376(2)(l) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the sexual offences and imposing fines

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, including on the grounds of delay, alleged false implication, and the severity of the sentence

The Court applied Sections 341 and 376(2)(l) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act to the offences proved against the appellant

It held that the applicable version of Section 6 was the provision in force on the date of the offence, before the 2019 amendment; that version prescribed rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years, extendable to life imprisonment

The Court considered that imposing the maximum sentence required valid reasons, and that sentencing should also account for the offender’s circumstances and the objectives of reformation and rehabilitation.

It relied on Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 2224 of 2014, disposed of on 14 October 2024, in support of the latter principle

The Court upheld the conviction, relying principally on the victim’s account, the medical evidence of hymenal injury and bleeding, and the FSL report showing blood on the victim’s clothing and the appellant’s innerwear

It also accepted the prosecution’s explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint

On sentence, the Court found that the Sessions Court had not given reasons for imposing life imprisonment.

Given the appellant’s age, lack of prior criminal antecedents, first-offender status, and period of incarceration, it considered life imprisonment disproportionate and reduced the sentence to the statutory minimum of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment

The conviction was maintained, but the sentence for the offences under Section 376(2)(l) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was modified to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default of payment.

The remaining part of the Sessions Court’s judgment and sentence was maintained