Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has partially allowed an appeal challenging the life imprisonment of an accused convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). While affirming the conviction, the court modified the sentence by removing the stipulation that the appellant must serve imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. Instead, the court directed that the life sentence awarded by the trial court be restored, with an additional fine of ₹5,00,000, payable to the victim.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta examined whether the trial court and High Court had correctly applied the sentencing provisions under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The court recorded that while the conviction was legally sound, the High Court had erred in increasing the punishment beyond the sentence awarded by the trial court in an appeal against conviction, without an appeal for enhancement.

Also Read: A person to be guilty under Section 34 IPC must share both in the "criminal act" and in the "common intention, holds Supreme Court

The case arose from an incident reported on October 28, 2015, in Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, the wife of the appellant, filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that her minor daughter, aged nine years, had been subjected to sexual assault by the appellant. She stated that she had left her daughter and another child, aged four years, at her matrimonial home while she visited her parental house with her youngest son.

According to the FIR, on October 22, 2015, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the appellant lured the minor victim to the rooftop of the house, where he sexually assaulted her and detained her overnight under threats. The child managed to inform her grandfather the next morning, following which her mother was notified. The appellant absconded after the incident, and the complainant, accompanied by her relatives, lodged the complaint at Police Station Chandpur, District Fatehpur.

The investigation was led by Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-7), who recorded witness statements and collected forensic evidence. The minor victim underwent medical examination by Dr. Manisha Shukla (PW-4), who found no external injuries but observed redness over the labia minora. Samples were collected for pathological examination, and DNA analysis was conducted. The victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) reinforced the allegations against the appellant.

The prosecution presented nine witnesses and exhibited eight documents. The appellant, when examined under Section 313 CrPC, denied the charges, claiming he had been falsely implicated due to prior disputes with his wife and father-in-law. He asserted that at the time of the incident, the child was residing with his sister. No defense evidence was led on behalf of the appellant.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Fatehpur, convicted the appellant on September 16, 2016, under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC, along with Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹25,000. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the conviction on August 2, 2019, but enhanced the sentence by directing that the appellant must undergo life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

The appellant challenged this enhancement before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by increasing the severity of the sentence in an appeal against conviction, without an appeal from the prosecution seeking enhancement.

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had erred in enhancing the sentence and whether Section 42A of the POCSO Act had been correctly applied. The judgment states:

"The only moot question which thus, requires adjudication is whether the conviction of the appellant ought to have been recorded under the IPC or whether the provisions of the Special law, i.e., Section 42A of POCSO Act, would prevail thereby, vitiating the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC."

The court examined Sections 42 and 42A of the POCSO Act, which deal with overlapping offenses under the IPC and POCSO. The judgment states:

"A bare perusal of Section 42 of the POCSO Act would make it clear that when the alleged acts or omissions constitute an offence both under the IPC and the POCSO Act, then, the law which prescribes the punishment of greater degree would have to be applied."

The appellant’s counsel argued that since Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act prescribe a lesser punishment than Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC, the appellant should have been sentenced only under the POCSO Act. The court rejected this contention, stating:

"Section 42A of 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 POCSO Act."

The court further examined the sentencing discretion available under Section 376(2) IPC, which provides for either rigorous imprisonment of at least 10 years or imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict. The judgment states:

"There is no mandate of law that under these provisions, the convict must be awarded life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life."

The court referred to Swamy Shraddhananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767, which held that courts have discretion to impose fixed-term sentences beyond 14 years in cases where life imprisonment would otherwise be grossly disproportionate.

The Supreme Court modified the sentence, restoring the punishment awarded by the trial court while stting aside the High Court’s enhancement. The judgment states:

"We thus, direct that the ends of justice would be served by restoring the judgment of the trial Court and directing that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused, by the trial Court, for the offence under Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act shall stand revived."

Also Read: Calcutta High Court : MOU Abandoned, Dismisses Arbitration Plea Over Share Dispute Citing Lapse of Time and Subsequent Agreements

For the offenses under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC, the court held:

"The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, as awarded by the trial Court, without the stipulation that the life term will enure till the natural life of the appellant and a fine of ₹5,00,000. In default, he shall undergo further imprisonment of two years."

The court further directed that:

"The fine, upon being deposited, shall be paid to the victim."

Case Title: Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 335
Case Number: Diary No. 3663 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

[Read/Download order]