The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has reduced the life sentence of a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, stating that the original punishment was “harsh and excessive,". 

A division bench comprising Justices Nitin B Suryawanshi and Pravin S Patil upheld the trial court’s findings, confirming that the prosecution had proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused, a labourer from Akola, was convicted in 2013 for sexually assaulting a one-and-a-half-year-old girl and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He later appealed to the high court, seeking a reduction in his sentence.

 According to court records, the incident took place when the accused forcefully entered a home in the absence of the male head of the family. The child’s mother, noticing the intruder, left to alert the neighbours. When she returned, she was horrified to find him assaulting her infant daughter.  

The man then allegedly grabbed the woman’s arm and attempted to rape her, but fled when she screamed for help.

Meanwhile, during the hearing, the defence lawyer argued that there was no substantial evidence of the crime and claimed that the medical officer’s testimony regarding the child’s injuries was only corroborative, not substantive evidence.

However, the high court dismissed this claim, ruling that the medical reports, eyewitness testimony, and circumstantial evidence conclusively established the crime under the Pocso Act.

"On careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt," the bench stated.  

The court further ruled that based on the woman’s testimony and supporting medical evidence, it was clear that the accused had committed a serious assault on the infant victim.  

While upholding the conviction, the high court also ruled that life imprisonment was "too harsh" and revised the sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. 

"However, we find that the sentence imposed on the appellant is harsh and excessive. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice," the court said.