The Bombay High Court on 2 February 2026 reduced the life sentence of a man convicted for raping a five-year-old girl in 2016 to 12 years’ imprisonment, noting his age at the time, long incarceration, and demonstrable reformative conduct in prison.

The Bombay High Court, in a bench comprising Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Sandesh D. Patil, upheld the conviction of Kalamuddin Mohammad Isteyar Ansari alias Koail for aggravated sexual assault and rape of a minor but modified the sentence from life imprisonment to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The Bench’s order, passed on 2 February and made public on 10 February, noted that Ansari was just 20 years old at the time of the offence and had no prior criminal history. He had been in continuous custody since December 2016, without being released even during the nationwide COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

The Court said that the sentence of 12 years “would meet the ends of justice” after balancing the severity of the crime with mitigating considerations. It also ordered that the time already served by Ansari more than nine years behind bars be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution’s case, as upheld during both trial and appeal, detailed that the five-year-old victim had gone to a neighbour’s house to fetch water on 9 December 2016, where she was sexually assaulted. When she returned home in distress, her family reported the matter to the police. The child later testified before the trial court at age eight, and the High Court found her evidence credible and consistent.

Court Cites Reformative Programmes and Educational Certificates

A key factor in the Court’s reasoning was Ansari’s engagement in reformative and educational activities during incarceration. His lawyers produced certificates showing his participation in multiple programmes while in prison, including:

• An exam on the ‘Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi’ certified by reputable institutions;
• Participation in an essay competition; and
• A programme involving analysis of books and written study.

The Bench observed that while the offence was undeniably grave, “all these factors considered cumulatively would make us show some leniency towards him for the sentencing part.” It noted that he had no antecedents, remained incarcerated without bail throughout, and had engaged in productive activities that suggested a possibility of reform.

Despite these mitigating factors, the judges emphasised that the sentence chosen exceeded the statutory minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment for the offences of aggravated sexual assault on a minor, demonstrating that the court had considered the gravity of the crime.

In addition, the High Court maintained the trial court’s order requiring the convict to pay ₹25,000 as compensation to the victim under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act.

Legal Context and Public Reaction

This judgment has reignited debate over the judiciary’s role in balancing punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, particularly in cases involving child sexual abuse. Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, offences against minors attract stringent penalties including life imprisonment.

Legal commentators have pointed out that while courts must enforce penalties that reflect the severity of crimes against children, the Indian justice system also recognises rehabilitation as an objective of sentencing.

This principle has occasionally guided courts to temper sentences when justified by age, conduct in custody, or prospects of reform.

However, the reduction has drawn criticism on social media and among rights activists, with many arguing that the decision might set a controversial precedent in sexual assault cases involving minors. Some online commentators have expressed concern that engaging in educational programmes in prison should not substantially mitigate punishment for heinous crimes.

Others acknowledge that the law makes space for considering reformation but urge clear standards for such assessments.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

At The Logical Indian, we recognise the abhorrence of crimes against children and unequivocally affirm that survivors must receive justice, dignity, and restitution. At the same time, we uphold the constitutional principles that govern India’s justice system principles that permit the weighing of reformative conduct, individual circumstances, and prospects for rehabilitation in sentencing, even for serious offences.

The Bombay High Court’s order attempts to strike this difficult balance, recognising both the gravity of the offence and mitigating circumstances rooted in law and established judicial practice.

While society must be unwavering in its commitment to protect the most vulnerable, we must also ensure that the rule of law and fair judicial process guide punishments not only retribution.

The challenge lies in consistently applying these principles without undermining public confidence or the sense of safety essential to children and families.