Court considers mitigating factors such as age, incarceration period, and family hardship in altering the sentence under POCSO Act.
The Delhi High Court, in a significant judgment, has modified the life imprisonment sentence of Mantram, alias Mantra, alias Sonu, to a rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. The appellant was initially sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. This decision comes as a result of the court taking into account various mitigating circumstances including the appellant's age, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the severe financial and familial hardships faced by his family.
The case, which has drawn substantial public attention, involved the appellant being convicted for a heinous crime against a six-year-old girl, leading to severe physical and psychological trauma to the victim. The incident occurred on March 13, 2017, when the victim was kidnapped and subjected to sexual assault. The appellant was subsequently arrested, and a rigorous trial ensued.
The Delhi High Court, comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain, noted the appellant's satisfactory conduct in jail and the absence of any adverse records during his incarceration. The court also acknowledged the appellant's familial responsibilities, including an aged father, a critically ill wife, and five minor children, who are facing severe financial distress due to his imprisonment.
In its judgment, the court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in "Deepankar Tikedar v. State of Chhattisgarh," which allowed for the modification of sentences in comparable situations, balancing both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court emphasized that while the conviction under the POCSO Act was upheld, the sentence needed reconsideration in light of the mitigating factors present in this case.
The court's decision also considered the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which were not successfully rebutted by the appellant. Despite the defense's argument regarding mistaken identity, the court found the prosecution's evidence, including the victim's testimony and corroborative medical and circumstantial evidence, compelling.
While the judgment has been met with mixed reactions, it highlights the court's discretion in sentencing, particularly in cases involving complex personal and social dynamics. The court's approach underscores the importance of considering the broader implications of sentencing on the convict's family and societal reintegration possibilities.
Bottom Line:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act - Modification of sentence - Considering mitigating circumstances including appellant's age, incarceration period, and family hardship, sentence modified from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 Sections 6, 29, 30; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 363, 506, 376(2)(i); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 428; Evidence Act, 1872 Section 65B; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415 (2).
Mantram @ Mantra @ Sonu v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849120
