Also Read - ₹20,000 Monthly Maintenance Upheld for Wife and Child by Karnataka High Court

The bench characterised the offence as heinous and noted the profound social impact of sexual violence. It concluded that granting the benefit of probation in a case of this magnitude would be counter‑productive to the societal interest and to the principles of criminal justice. Accordingly, the request for probation was rejected.

Application of Statutory Provisions for Sentence Reduction

Although the bench declined to substitute imprisonment with probation, it examined whether the sentence could be moderated under the proviso to Section 376(1) IPC as it stood at the time of the offence. That provision permitted a reduction below the statutory seven‑year minimum where adequate and special reasons existed. The court identified several circumstances that, taken together, satisfied this requirement.

Also Read - Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Probate Applications

First, the bench noted the extraordinary delay in the adjudication of the appeal. The criminal appeal had remained pending before the High Court for approximately forty‑three years, a period not attributable to any fault of the appellant. Second, the offence itself occurred roughly forty‑seven years ago, placing the events firmly in the past. Third, the appellant had attained the age of seventy‑one years, having been twenty‑seven at the time of trial. Fourth, the record disclosed no indication of any other criminal involvement by the appellant either before or after the incident.

Considering the cumulative effect of these factors, the bench held that they constituted adequate and special reasons justifying a reduction of the sentence. Consequently, while affirming the conviction, the court modified the substantive term of imprisonment from seven and a half years to four years rigorous imprisonment. The concurrent sentences of two years each under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were left undisturbed.

Also Read - Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Proclaimed Person Order Against NRI Woman

Observation Regarding the Omitted Fine

The bench further observed that the trial court of 1983 had failed to impose the mandatory fine prescribed under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC alongside the imprisonment term. However, Justice Rai clarified that, since neither the State nor the victim had preferred an appeal for enhancement of the sentence, the High Court could not rectify the omission to the detriment of the accused. Imposing a fine at this stage would amount to an enhancement of the sentence already awarded, which would be impermissible in an appeal preferred solely by the accused.

Operative Direction

The court directed the appellant to surrender and to serve out the remainder of the sentence as modified. The order thereby partly allows the criminal appeal filed by the accused‑appellant, upholding the conviction while adjusting the term of imprisonment in light of the elapsed time, the advanced age of the offender and the absence of any subsequent criminal conduct.

Also Read - P&H High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Child Rape and Murder Case