The severity of the crime, the impact on the victim, and the need for deterrence in cases of sexual assault on minors influenced the court's decision to uphold the rigorous imprisonment for life as per Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1806.

Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. In the immortal words of Dag Hammarsk jöld : “Forgiveness is the answer to the child's dream of a miracle by which what is broken is made whole again, what is soiled is made clean again.” But there are certain devastating moments in one’s life, which cannot be repaired, the loss that cannot be forgotten or forgiven. Each time we hear of a rape case, or any sort of assault against women, it gives a chill in the spine, daunts the faith overshadowing the entire system and shuns away the faith of the society at large, it is one of such crimes that definitely do not deserve to be assuaged.

2. ‘Rape’, one of the most barbaric and heinous crimes. The cases of rape, gang rape and digital rape are on increase and perpetrators of this inhuman and brutal crime are worse than even the beasts and deserve to be dealt with a heavy hand. They need to be dealt with sternly and severely. Its a gruesome and ghastly act of rape wherein a man acts as a slave of his martinet and lowers himself to a baffling extent for the sole purpose of achieving gratification of his carnal desire. The case at hand very peculiarly exposes the inferior bequests of nature in the appellant who is a man of about 35 years of age and made an attempt to commit rape on a 2 year old female child.

3. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C to assail the judgment dated 25.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 for Rigorous Imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

4. At the outset, Mr.Dandapani, counsel representing the appellant candidly conceded to the conviction order but pleaded for showing some leniency on the sentence part and scale it down to the minimum period of sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment as provided under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC, instead of maintaining maximum sentence of life imprisonment as awarded by the learned Trial Court. Counsel also argued that the appellant was of 35 years of age and at the relevant time was working as a labourer at Shakur basti area in Delhi and due to many deprivations in his life and also due to his economic and social condition, he should be given a chance to reform himself instead of confining him into jail for his entire life. Counsel also submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and his jail record is also satisfactory and he has already spent 10 years including the period of remission earned by him. Therefore, due to these mitigating circumstances, the appellant deserves one opportunity for his reformation than to get punished for rest of his life. In support of his arguments counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, which are as under:

1. Tapan Biswas V. State, 2010 Cri.LJ (NOC) 60 (DEL.)

2. Bavo alias Manubhai Ambalal Thakore v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 2 SCC 684

5. Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State on the other hand argued that the appellant had brutally committed rape of a two year old small baby girl and it is not rape alone but the way the appellant has ravished the small child warrants maximum punishment as envisaged under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1806, as there being no room of any leniency for such a barbaric and beastly person. In support of his arguments, counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Narain V. The State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2013 SC 2209.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them. We have also gone through the record of the case and the judgments cited by counsel for the parties.

7. Before we proceed to take a view on the quantum of sentence, it would be a