Judicial Discretion Permits Tailored Sentencing Even in Heinous Offences: Supreme Court

“Though the Crime is Grave, Age and Jail Conduct Justify Sentencing to a Determinate Term of 25 Years Without Remission”, Supreme Court delivered a notable decision in Deepankar Tikedar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, partially allowing an appeal that sought reconsideration of the sentence awarded for the rape of a minor girl. While upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, a bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan ruled that the sentence of life imprisonment until natural death imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court would stand modified to a fixed term of 25 years of actual imprisonment, without remission.

The Court drew on established precedent to hold that even in cases involving heinous crimes such as aggravated sexual assault of minors, the judiciary retains discretion to tailor the sentence, provided it is exercised cautiously and grounded in mitigating factors.

“Though the offence is grievous, considering the age of the appellant and also that there are no antecedents and further his conduct during custody has been satisfactory, the sentence of life imprisonment till natural death can be converted to limited period,” the Court held.

“Conviction Is Not Under Challenge; Appeal is Only on the Question of Sentence”

The appellant, Deepankar Tikedar, had been convicted by the Trial Court in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 29/2022 and sentenced on July 13, 2023, to life imprisonment until natural death for raping a girl aged 15 to 16 years. The conviction was based on an FIR registered on May 4, 2022, and the prosecution had invoked Section 376(3) IPC, which mandates stricter punishment for rape of minors below 16, alongside Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

His appeal before the Chhattisgarh High Court in CRA No. 1916 of 2023 was dismissed on September 25, 2024, with the Court affirming both conviction and sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant did not challenge his conviction, but sought leniency only in terms of sentencing, urging the Court to convert the sentence to a limited period of incarceration.

“Offence May Be Heinous, But Age, First-Time Offending, and Jail Conduct Are Relevant Considerations in Sentencing Policy”

The Court, after hearing both sides, acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, especially given the age of the victim. However, it noted that the appellant had no prior criminal antecedents, and his conduct during incarceration had been satisfactory. These factors, the Court ruled, could not be ignored even in the face of a grave offence.

“Considering the age of the appellant, and also that there are no antecedents and further his conduct during custody has been satisfactory, the sentence... can be converted to limited period,” the Court said.

The Bench relied upon its earlier ruling in Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, holding that:

“This Court can exercise such a power in view of law laid down in Shiva Kumar.”

Although the citation of the case was not specified, it reflects a growing judicial view that sentencing must reflect not just retribution but reformative and proportional elements, especially when no aggravating post-conviction conduct is evident.

“Fixed-Term Sentences Without Remission Offer a Balanced Approach Between Absolute Leniency and Irrevocable Harshness”

By modifying the sentence from life until natural death to a fixed term of 25 years without remission, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a calibrated exercise of discretion. It maintained the severity of the punishment by expressly ordering that the sentence must be served in full without remission, thereby ensuring that the gravity of the crime is not diluted, while also giving recognition to the individual mitigating circumstances of the appellant.

In doing so, the Court appears to have drawn a constitutional balance between the dignity of the victim, the reformative goal of sentencing, and the individualisation of punishment. The message is clear: Life imprisonment until natural death is not mandatory in all cases, even under aggravated charges, if compelling mitigating factors exist.

“Appellate Courts Can and Should Intervene to Ensure That Sentences Are Just, Not Merely Harsh”

The decision underscores the Supreme Court’s consistent position that appellate courts are not helpless when faced with disproportionate sentencing, even in cases involving serious offences like child rape.

In prior rulings, such as Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka and Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, the Court has reaffirmed that fixed-term sentences without remission are constitutionally valid alternatives to either the death penalty or imprisonment till natural death, especially in cases that fall into the “rarest of rare” grey area.

The Court's decision in Deepankar Tikedar furthers this trajectory, by acknowledging:

“Judicial discretion allows sentence to be tailored considering mitigating circumstances.”

Date of Decision: November 25, 2025