The Delhi High Court has refused to grant probation to a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that offences punishable with life imprisonment cannot attract the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The court sentenced the convict to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment while also directing compensation of ₹10.5 lakh for the survivor.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an appeal filed by the State against an earlier trial court judgment acquitting the accused, Deepak. On May 4, 2026, the High Court had reversed that acquittal and convicted him under Sections 363, 366 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
During the sentencing hearing, counsel for the convict urged the court to release him on probation, arguing that he was 21 years old at the time of the incident, had no criminal history, and was the sole earning member of his family. The defence also submitted that the case dated back to 2014 and both parties had since moved on with their lives.
The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum sentence of 10 years and therefore probation could not be granted.
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja examined the scope of the Probation of Offenders Act in cases involving serious offences.
The bench referred to Supreme Court rulings and observed that the benefit of probation is unavailable where the offence is punishable with life imprisonment, even if a lesser sentence may also be imposed. The court quoted from precedent stating that offences of a “serious nature punishable with imprisonment for life” fall outside the protection of the probation law.
The judges further clarified that the relevant age for seeking protection under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act is the age of the accused on the date of conviction and sentencing, not on the date of the offence. Since the convict was over 21 years old when convicted in May 2026, the protection was held inapplicable.
Rejecting the plea for leniency, the bench observed that the POCSO Act was enacted specifically to protect children from sexual offences and carries stringent punishments because of the gravity of such crimes.
Taking note of the fact that the convict had already spent over five years and seven months in custody during investigation and trial, and had no previous criminal antecedents, the court imposed the minimum punishment prescribed under law.
The court sentenced the convict to:
- 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act with a fine of ₹10,000;
- 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC;
- 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC; and
- 3 months’ imprisonment under Section 342 IPC.
All sentences will run concurrently.
The bench also awarded compensation of ₹10.5 lakh to the survivor, noting the emotional trauma and the victim’s age.
The High Court dismissed the convict’s application seeking release on probation and directed that he be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence. The appeal was accordingly disposed of on May 20, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: State of NCT of Delhi v. Deepak
Case Number: CRL.A. 236/2021
Judges: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Decision Date: May 20, 2026
