Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in POCSO Case but Modifies Life Sentence | Says Retrospective Application of Harsher 2019 Amendment Violates Article 20(1)
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that sentencing provisions under a penal statute cannot be applied retrospectively if they impose a harsher punishment than what was permissible at the time of the offence. In a criminal appeal arising from the State of Chhattisgarh, the Court modified the sentence of a convict found guilty under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. While affirming the conviction, the Bench set aside the enhanced punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, holding that such a sentence was introduced through an amendment that came into force after the date of the offence.
The Court directed that the sentence be modified to rigorous imprisonment for life as defined under the unamended provisions of the POCSO Act. The imposition of the higher punishment, as per the Court, violated the constitutional safeguard under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits retrospective application of penal provisions imposing greater punishment. The appeal was partly allowed, with the fine of ₹10,000/- maintained. The pending applications, if any, were disposed of in accordance with the judgment.
The present criminal appeal arose from a judgment dated 05.09.2023 delivered by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The High Court dismissed the appellant's plea challenging his conviction and sentence as awarded by the Trial Court on 30.11.2021. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
On 26.06.2019, the father of the prosecutrix, identified in the record as PW-3, lodged FIR No. 37/2019 at Police Station Vishrampur, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. As per the FIR, on 20.05.2019, the informant, his wife, and mother had gone to attend a marriage function, leaving their children at home. The prosecutrix, then five years of age, was playing outside the house. When the family returned and the child could not be found, the mother went to the appellant’s house and confronted him. Upon this, the appellant fled the premises.
Following this, the police registered a case against the appellant alleging that he had lured the minor prosecutrix into his house and committed rape. The matter was investigated and the appellant was charged under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The Trial Court, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a clear finding that the appellant had committed the offence as alleged. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life, to mean the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of ₹10,000/-.
On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The High Court, in its judgment, noted that the crime committed was of a heinous and grave nature, and the victim being a five-year-old child left no scope for any leniency.
Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Court issued notice limited to the question of sentence on 30.09.2024. The key contention raised before the Supreme Court was whether the amended sentencing provision under the POCSO Act, brought into force on 16.08.2019, could be retrospectively applied to an offence committed on 20.05.2019.
The Bench took note of the arguments advanced by both sides. It observed that the amendment to the POCSO Act, 2012, through the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, came into force on 16.08.2019. This amendment modified Section 6 of the POCSO Act by enhancing the minimum sentence to 20 years and redefining "imprisonment for life" to mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict.
"We find merit in the appellant’s submission that since the offence was committed on 20.05.2019, the amended provision of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which came into force on 16.08.2019, could not have been applied to his case," the Court recorded.
The Court relied on Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, which provides: "No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence."
The Bench held: "The Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute."
It further recorded: "The Trial Court, in applying the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 Amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, has effectively subjected the appellant to a punishment greater than that which was permissible under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence which is clearly violative of the bar contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India."
The Court concluded that the sentence of imprisonment for life, to mean the remainder of natural life, did not exist in law at the time the offence was committed. It explained: "The sentence of 'imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life,' as per the amended provision, did not exist in the statutory framework on 20.05.2019, the date of the incident. Under the unamended Section 6, the maximum punishment permissible was imprisonment for life in its conventional sense and not imprisonment till the remainder of natural life."
Upon evaluating the merits of the case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, it proceeded to modify the sentence as follows:
"Accordingly, while we uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, we modify the sentence to that of rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life. The fine of ₹10,000/- is maintained."
The Court clarified that this modification was necessitated to conform with the constitutional mandate of Article 20(1) and to align with the law as it stood on the date of the offence. The appeal was thus partly allowed to the extent of sentence only.
"Appeal is partly allowed as per the findings above. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Atul Jha, A.A.G.; Mr. Abhishek Pandey Standing Counsel, Adv, Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR
Case Title: XXX v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 892
Case Number: Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 13834 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
