Yesterday, the Delhi High Court revised the sentence of a man found guilty of the "digital rape" of a four-year-old girl in 2014, reducing his jail term from 20 years to 12 years.

In his ruling, Justice Amit Bansal considered the 38-year-old appellant's circumstances, noting that he has a considerable life ahead of him and responsibilities toward an aging mother. The court also acknowledged his satisfactory conduct while in jail.

"The trial court had sentenced the appellant to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, observing that the appellant had committed 'digital rape' on a child of four years at the time of the incident," the court said.

The court, while upholding the appellant's conviction under the POCSO Act for digital rape (penetration using fingers), determined that justice would be served by reducing the appellant's sentence to 12 years. In their assessment, they found it fitting to decrease the initial 20-year sentence to 12 years while maintaining the imposed fine of ₹15,000 as awarded by the trial court.

The appellant, who was the survivor's tutor's brother-in-law, received a 20-year prison sentence in 2021. This judgment was based on Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the trial court imposed a fine of ₹15,000 on the appellant.

According to the POCSO Act, penetrative sexual assault is defined as the insertion, to any degree, of an object or body part of the accused into the vagina, urethra, or anus of a child. The court highlighted that in this case, the appellant didn't successfully challenge the "presumption" against him by presenting evidence or undermining the prosecution's evidence.

Absolutely, in the context of the law, penetrative sexual assault can escalate to aggravated penetrative sexual assault based on specific circumstances, one of which includes the survivor being under the age of 12. Such aggravated situations often carry more severe legal implications and consequences under the law, including the POCSO Act.

The court noted that the trial court appropriately recognized that the testimony of the defense witness, who was related to the appellant and turned uncooperative, doesn't diminish the credibility of the child's statements. The child's account couldn't be dismissed solely because of the witness's change in stance.

The court expressed that the absence of visible injuries on the survivor's private parts or the intact hymen didn't negate the possibility of her experiencing penetrative sexual assault. Their opinion highlighted that a lack of physical evidence doesn't discount the possibility of such an assault having occurred.

The court noted that there isn't a fixed or rigid guideline in criminal law for determining the sentencing of an accused. It emphasized that the primary goals of sentencing should involve deterrence, aimed at preventing similar incidents, and fostering rehabilitation or reformation of the accused.

The court took into account that the appellant had already served over nine years in prison. Throughout this period, he had been employed as a 'langar sahayak' and had exhibited satisfactory conduct.

"He has not been involved in any other offence. It is also relevant to note that the appellant was a young man of around 28 years at the time of commission of the offence. As on date, he is around 38 years of age and has a substantial life ahead of him. He also has an aging mother to look after," the court said.