Unnatural sex: Kerala High Court reduces jail term of convict to one day

The Kerala High Court recently reduced the jail sentence for a man convicted for attempting to sexually assault a 12-year-old minor boy in 2008, to imprisonment for one day till the rising of the Court and provided that he pays ₹25,000 as compensation to the victim..Justice CS Sudha acknowledged that sexual offences against children and women are on the rise and that it may send a wrong message if Sections 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (which allows the release of prisoners for good conduct or after admonishing the offender) is applied. Nevertheless, the Court decided to take a lenient view given the convict's young age at the time of the crime and since his act only amounted to an attempt to commit an offence, which is punishable under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."Of late offences of this nature, that is, sexual offences against children and women are on the increase. Hence invoking the provisions of the PO Act may send a wrong message to society at large. However, considering the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence and the nature of the offence made out from the materials a lenient view can be taken," the Court opined. .The judge added that the interest of justice can be adequately met by compensating the victim. "The interest of justice can be met by adequately compensating the victim. Hence the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to imprisonment for a day till the rising of the Court and to payment of compensation of ₹25,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months," the Court ordered. .The case dated back to October 2008. The 12-year-old victim stated that the accused man, who was 19 years old at the time of the incident, forcibly took him to a vacant property, pushed him to the ground, undressed him and pulled at his private part, causing him pain. The victim added that the accused threatened not to disclose the incident to anyone. In 2014, a trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 377 and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.He was sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹10,000 for committing the offence under Section 377, IPC.Further, he received a one-year sentence for criminal intimidation. The sentences were to run at the same time.The convicted man challenged this verdict before the High Court the same year, arguing that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. .The case was heard in detail earlier this year. On March 6, 2025 the High Court opined that this was not a case where the accused had committed the offence under Section 377, IPC. Rather, there was only an attempt to do so, bringing the case under Section 511 (attempt to commit an offence) of the IPC.The Court found that there were certain discrepancies between the victim's statement to the trial court and the statement he had made to the police. It noted that the trial court had recorded that the victim said that the accused had thrust his private part between the victim's thighs. However, the first information statement (FIS) given to the police only mentioned that the accused had pulled the victim's private part, causing him pain. The medical report also mentioned bruises on the neck and scrotum but did not confirm any unnatural sexual act."The materials on record do not make out an offence under Section 377 IPC. At best the overt acts of the accused can only be termed as an attempt to commit the offence punishable under Section 377, that is, Section 511 of 377, and not an offence under Section 377 IPC," the High Court concluded. .The Court, therefore, reduced the imprisonment sentence of the convict to one day and ordered him to pay ₹25,000 as compensation to the victim. Advocate P Venugopal represented the convict, while Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]