LI Network
Published on: January 8, 2024 at 16:16 IST
The Delhi High Court has reduced the sentence of a man convicted for digital rape on a minor girl from twenty years to twelve years, citing his satisfactory conduct in jail.
Digital rape involves penetration using fingers or toes without the victim’s consent, deriving its meaning from the English word ‘digit,’ referring to fingers, thumbs, or toes.
This decision followed an appeal filed by the convicted man against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO).
Justice Amit Bansal, in a Single Bench, noted that the appellant had served over nine years of the twenty-year sentence, showcasing satisfactory conduct during his incarceration. He has also been working as a ‘langar sahayak’ and has not faced any punishments during his imprisonment, showing no involvement in any other offense.
Case Background:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
He was sentenced to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 15,000, but no sentence was awarded under Section 376 of the IPC in line with Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
The incident involved the sexual assault of a four-and-a-half-year-old girl. The child’s father reported the assault to the police, leading to the arrest and subsequent conviction of the appellant.
During the High Court proceedings, it was noted that the appellant did not cross-examine the doctor who prepared the MLC or the police officials regarding the non-submission of samples for FSL examination.
The Court highlighted the statutory presumption against the accused under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and observed that the appellant failed to rebut this presumption or discredit the prosecution’s evidence.
The High Court, considering the nature of the crime and the aim of reformation, reduced the sentence from twenty to twelve years, retaining the imposed fine.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence, considering the appellant’s conduct and circumstances.
This move came in recognition of restorative justice principles, aiming to provide convicts with the opportunity to reform and contribute positively to society upon release.