Criminal Jurisprudence
Sentencing is an important task while convicting a person for a crime—It is trite that sentence has to be commensurate with the nature and gravity of offence and also the manner in which the crime is committed; victim’s condition and age of the accused and other relevant factors—There is no straight jacket formula for sentencing the accused, however, twin objectives of the sentencing policy i.e. deterrence and correction need to be kept in mind—What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on facts of each case—Court has to consider aggravating as well as mitigating factors, while sentencing.
[Para 17.1]
Criminal Trial
Non-joining of public person—Effect—Non-joining of witness is not always fatal to the prosecution case, if other witnesses are trustworthy.
[Para 16]
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Section 6—Aggravated penetrative sexual assault—Appeal against conviction—Appellant/accused alleged to inserted his penis into vagina of prosecutrix aged around 4 years—Failure of appellant/accused to prove his plea of alibi and plea of false implication because of dispute between parties over payment of outstanding rent/money dues—Credible and consistent testimonies of prosecutrix and her mother supported by medical evidence—Injuries suffered by prosecutrix points towards slight insertion of penis—Non-deduction of semen on the clothes of victim or appellant/accused does not impact the prosecution case—Non-joining of witness also does not materially impact the case of prosecution—Prosecution has proved the foundational facts ; it was for the appellant/accused to rebut the presumption under Section 29 of the Act by proving to the contrary, which appellant/accused miserably failed to do—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 9 to 16]
Section 6—Aggravated penetrative sexual assault—Sentence—Reduction of—For the offence punishable under Section 6 the POCSO Act, the legislature has prescribed the minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years and which may extend to imprisonment for life—When the prosecutrix started crying, the appellant/accused let her go and did not force himself upon her any further—He did not resort to brutality and violence to complete the act—Further, the appellant/accused was 48 years old at the time of incident ; he has clean antecedents and is first time offender ; he is a family person having wife and two minor children and is the sole bread earner of the family, his conduct in jail has remained good and he has been taking yoga classes in jail—Considering these facts in entirety, the present facts and circumstance do not warrant imposition of maximum punishment i.e. imprisonment for life as awarded by the trial court—Appellant has already been incarcerated for a period of around 11 years 4 months and 8 days, which is considered to be sufficient in the present fact situation—Sentence of appellant is reduced from life imprisonment to the period already undergone by him.
[Paras17.2 to 17.4]
Decision : Sentence reduced