Natural life sentence for repeated rape reduced to ten years for victim aged sixteen to eighteen.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sagar, for the abduction and repeated rape of a minor victim (PW-1).

On the night of June 27, 2014, the appellant allegedly gagged and forcibly abducted the victim from her home, holding her for 15 days across various locations where he committed repeated sexual assault.

The victim was recovered on July 12, 2014.

The appellant challenged the conviction, asserting the case was a false implication arising from a monetary dispute with the victim's father and that the victim’s testimony was unreliable.

The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) of the IPC, and Section 5(L) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the prosecutrix and medical evidence.

2. Whether the Trial Court correctly determined the age of the prosecutrix as being under 16 years at the time of the incident.

3. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life was mandatory or appropriate under the applicable provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act.

Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC (repeated rape) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), noting that while these carry potential life sentences, the minimum punishment is 10 years (as per the 2013/2012 provisions applicable at the time of the offense).

The precedent set in Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which emphasized balancing retributive and restorative justice in sentencing.

Pintu Thakur alias Ravi v. State of Chhattisgarh, which held that life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life is not mandatory if mitigating circumstances exist.

The Court found the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) to be consistent, cogent, and corroborated by medical evidence (PW-11) and the FSL report (Ex. P-14), which confirmed the presence of human spermatozoa.

The appellant's defense regarding a monetary dispute was rejected as the victim's parents denied the allegations during cross-examination.

Regarding age, the Court analyzed the ossification test (PW-8) and witness statements, concluding that while the victim was a minor (under 18), she was older than 16 years.

The Court observed that the Trial Court provided no specific reasoning for imposing a "natural life" sentence.

Following the principles in Mohd. Firoz and Pintu Thakur, the Court determined that a 10-year rigorous imprisonment term met the ends of justice, given the victim's age was between 16 and 18 at the time of the incident.

The High Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court modified the sentence, reducing the life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offenses under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, with all sentences to run concurrently.