The Supreme Court of India has made a significant ruling regarding the application of punishments when an offender is convicted under both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court clarified that in such cases, the offender will be liable to be sentenced under the provision that prescribes the higher degree of punishment.
Section 42 of the POCSO Act mandates that when an act constitutes an offence under both the POCSO Act and the IPC, the offender shall be liable to punishment under the law that provides for the greater degree of punishment.
Section 42A of the POCSO Act deals with procedural aspects and gives an overriding effect to the POCSO Act over any other law in case of inconsistency. However, it cannot override the scope of Section 42, which deals with the quantum of punishment.
"Section 42 specifically deals with the quantum of punishment mandating that when a particular act or omission constitutes an offence, both under the POCSO Act and also under the provisions of the IPC or the Information Technology Act, 2000, then, the offender found guilty of the offence would be liable to punishment under the POCSO Act or under the provisions of the IPC whichever provides a punishment of a greater degree." – Supreme Court
Read Also:- Supreme Court Flags Rising Vacancies in District Judiciary We Don't Have Judges, Courts Overburdened
The Case:
The case in question involved Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh, who was convicted by the trial court for sexually assaulting his minor daughter. He was charged under Sections 376(2)(f) (rape by a relative or person in a position of trust) and 376(2)(i) (rape of a woman incapable of giving consent) of the IPC, as well as Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act (penetrative sexual assault and punishment).
The trial court sentenced Singh to life imprisonment under the IPC, as it provided for a higher punishment (life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life) compared to the POCSO Act (which provides for a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment). The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
Issues Before the Court:
- Whether the appellant should have been convicted under the IPC or the POCSO Act?
- Whether the High Court erred in enhancing the sentence in an appeal against conviction filed by the accused, especially when no appeal for enhancement was filed by the State?
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court, referring to Section 42 of the POCSO Act, held that the IPC provisions (Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i)) provide for a higher punishment compared to the POCSO Act. Therefore, the conviction under the IPC was justified.
"Section 42A of the POCSO Act, on the other hand, deals with the procedural aspects and gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the POCSO Act over any other law for the time being in force where the two acts are inconsistent with each other. Hence, the provisions of Section 42A of the POCSO Act, by no stretch of imagination, can be interpreted so as to override the scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., Section 42 of the POCSO Act." – Supreme Court
High Court’s Error in Enhancing Sentence:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had clarified that the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court would mean imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life. However, the Court held that the High Court could not enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused, especially without an appeal for enhancement by the State.
"The High Court, while deciding the appeal against conviction preferred by the appellant, observed that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC would extend to the remainder of the natural life of the appellant. This direction was merely a clarification to keep the sentence in tune with the language of the sentencing provision. Nevertheless, the fact remains that because of this clarification, the rigour of the sentence awarded has been increased to the effect that the appellant would have to spend the remainder of his natural life in prison without any possibility of early release." – Supreme Court
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in POCSO Case, Stresses Consent and Age Proof Challenges
The Supreme Court modified the sentence, holding that the appellant would serve life imprisonment (as awarded by the trial court) but without the stipulation that it would extend to the remainder of his natural life. The Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, to be paid to the victim.
"Consequently, we are of the view that conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act is wholly justified. However, we feel that the High Court erred while directing that the appellant would have to serve life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life as provided under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC." – Supreme Court
Case Title: GYANENDRA SINGH @ RAJA SINGH VERSUS STATE OF U.P.
Appearances:
- For Petitioner(s): Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, AOR, Mr. B Venkatraman, Adv., Mr. Debasish Mishra, Adv.
- For Respondent(s): Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR, Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv., Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv.
