Punjab & Haryana High Court Reduces Rape Convict's Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing His Paralysis, 23-Year Delay
Saksham Vaishya
20 April 2026 2:35 PM IST
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reduced the sentence of a rape convict to the period already served based on the medical condition of the convict and subsequent developments. The Court observed that such circumstances constitute “adequate and special reasons” for awarding a lesser sentence.
Justice Rupinderjit Chahal was hearing an appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence under Sections 363 and 376 IPC passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. As per the prosecution, the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, was approached by the appellant on the pretext of marriage, who then also had sexual intercourse with her against her will. The appellant contended that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied him and that the relationship was consensual.
The Court examined the material on record and held that the age of the prosecutrix had been proved through the school record and testimony of her mother. It held that once the prosecutrix is found to be a minor, the question of consent becomes immaterial. The Court further found that the testimony of the prosecutrix was consistent and trustworthy and that the absence of injuries or a slight delay in lodging the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case.
“The delay in lodging FIRs in rape cases can be attributed to a variety of reasons, particularly the natural reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to approach the police; as such matters deeply concern the dignity of the prosecutrix and the overall honour of the family… the delay in lodging the FIR to the police in the present matter is not fatal to the case of the prosecution,” the Court observed.
The Court rejected the challenge to the conviction and held that the prosecution had established the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It observed that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were well-reasoned and did not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
While considering the sentence, the Court took note of subsequent developments, including that the incident was more than 23 years old, the appellant had suffered a paralytic attack resulting in dysfunction of the left side of his body, and both the appellant and the prosecutrix had since married and settled in life. It also noted that the prosecutrix had entered into a compromise with the appellant.
The Court held that these factors cumulatively constituted adequate and special reasons for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the High Court modified the sentence and reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.
Case Title: Dharminder Kumar vs. State of Haryana [CRA-S-1849-SB-2004]