High Court modifies sentence from seven to five years in light of accused's age and procedural considerations
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has modified the sentence of Kanhaiya Lal, who was convicted for aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (PoCSO), 2012. The court reduced his sentence from the initial seven years imposed by the trial court to the statutory minimum of five years, citing the advanced age of the accused and procedural omissions that did not result in substantial prejudice.
The appellant, Kanhaiya Lal, was accused of committing sexual assault on a minor girl, aged six, in August 2022 at Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The trial court had found him guilty under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the PoCSO Act, alongside various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 354, 354A, 354B, and 506. Lal was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under the PoCSO Act, in addition to a two-year term under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation.
The appeal contended that the trial court did not comply with Section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates questioning of the accused before the trial court. Although this procedural lapse was acknowledged, the High Court held that such omissions do not vitiate proceedings unless they result in serious prejudice to the accused, which was not the case here.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, who presided over the appeal, noted that the testimony of the minor victim was cogent and trustworthy, sufficient to uphold the conviction despite the non-examination of other potential witnesses. The court also dismissed the defense's argument that the densely populated location made the occurrence of the crime improbable, citing consistent testimony from the victim and her mother.
The defense further argued that prior disputes between the accused and the victim's family were motives for false implication. However, the High Court found no substantial evidence to support claims of enmity capable of motivating false charges. The court observed that the delay in FIR registration was adequately explained by the victim's subsequent disclosure of the incident to her mother.
In reconsidering the sentence, the High Court took into account the accused's age, 62 years, and the absence of serious prejudice from procedural lapses. The court concluded that a five-year sentence would serve the ends of justice, modifying the initial seven-year term. The conviction under Section 506 IPC, carrying a two-year sentence, was upheld, with both sentences directed to run concurrently.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in balancing procedural integrity with substantive justice, particularly in sensitive cases involving child victims.
Bottom line:-
Conviction and sentence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 reduced to the statutory minimum of five years imprisonment, given the age of the accused and the absence of substantial prejudice caused by procedural omissions.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 9(m), 10; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 506; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 232; Evidence Act, 1872; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Kanhaiya Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2937366
