A recent judgment by a Mumbai court has drawn significant attention after it sentenced a 40-year-old man to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for repeatedly raping his 13-year-old daughter over a three-year period. The court opted against a life sentence, citing the absence of family support for the victim and her sisters, the father’s lack of prior criminal history, and his good behavior in jail. The judge expressed hope that the “strong pillars of prison” might lead to a change in the father’s behavior, potentially allowing him to support his daughters in the future .

This decision has sparked public debate, with many questioning whether the reduced sentence adequately reflects the severity of the crime and the trauma inflicted on the victim. The case highlights the complex considerations courts may weigh in sentencing decisions, including the welfare of remaining family members and the potential for rehabilitation.

In contrast, other courts have taken a stricter stance in similar cases. For instance, a Gujarat POCSO court recently sentenced a man to life imprisonment for repeatedly raping his 15-year-old daughter, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime and the need to protect society from individuals with such “mentality” .

These differing judgments underscore the ongoing debate over appropriate sentencing in cases of sexual violence, particularly involving minors, and the balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and the broader societal implications.

Sources