The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Exercising its sentencing power, the Court commuted the sentence of life imprisonment until natural death to a fixed term of 25 years of actual imprisonment without the benefit of remission, citing the appellant’s age, clean antecedents, and satisfactory jail conduct.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from FIR No. 08/2022, registered on 04.05.2022, against the appellant, Deepankar Tikedar. The allegations pertained to the commission of sexual offences against a minor girl, who was reportedly between 15 to 16 years of age at the time of the incident. The appellant was subsequently tried and convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the rape of a woman under sixteen years of age, and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which prescribes punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child. The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. This conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in its judgment dated 25.09.2024. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel did not contest the conviction but sought leniency in sentencing, arguing that the appellant had no prior criminal record and had maintained satisfactory conduct during his incarceration. The State opposed any reduction, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and its impact on the minor victim. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the heinous nature of the offence, considered the mitigating factors and modified the sentence.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the registration of FIR No. 08/2022 on 04.05.2022 against the appellant. Following investigation and trial, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment until natural death. The appellant then challenged this order before the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal (CRA) No. 1916 of 2023. The High Court, in its judgment dated 25.09.2024, dismissed the appeal and upheld both the conviction and the sentence. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9598 of 2025 before the Supreme Court of India. Upon granting leave, the matter was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 5028 of 2025, wherein the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal. While confirming the conviction, it modified the sentence, reducing it to a fixed term of 25 years of actual imprisonment without remission.
READ ALSO:CPC Order XXI Rule 90(3): Supreme Court Clarifies Time-Bar for Challenging Execution Sales
Court Observation:
In its observations, the Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the conviction under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the Court exercised its discretionary sentencing power under Article 142 of the Constitution. It found merit in the mitigating circumstances presented, specifically the appellant’s young age, the absence of any prior criminal antecedents, and his satisfactory conduct during custody with no complaints against him. Balancing the heinous nature of the crime against these personal factors, the Court held that a sentence of life imprisonment until natural death was not imperatively warranted in this specific case. Relying on the precedent set in Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, the Court concluded it was appropriate to commute the sentence to a fixed, rigorous term. Consequently, it reduced the punishment to a fixed term of 25 years of actual imprisonment, explicitly barring any benefit of remission.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its final decision, partially allowed the criminal appeal. While it expressly upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, it modified the sentence awarded by the courts below. The Court set aside the punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life. In its place, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court imposed a sentence of a fixed term of 25 years of actual imprisonment. The judgement specifically and unequivocally stated that this sentence is to be served without the benefit of remission. The impugned order of the High Court was modified to this extent, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Deepankar Tikedar v. State of Chhattisgarh Citation: 2025 INSC 1381 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5028 of 2025 Date of Judgement: November 25, 2025 Judge/Justice Name: Justice Rajesh Bindal
Download The Judgement Here