Supreme Court upheld a man’s conviction for sexually assaulting a minor but reduced his sentence from natural life to standard life imprisonment. Court ruled enhanced punishment under amended POCSO can’t apply retrospectively.
New Delhi: On July 25, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the conviction of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl but modified his sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life to life imprisonment in its traditional legal sense.
This decision was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
The incident occurred in May 2019. At that time, the relevant law—Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act—had not yet been amended.
ALSO READ: ‘Terminate 30-Week Pregnancy’: HC Permits 11-Year-Old Sexual Assault Survivor
The amended version of Section 6, which introduced a stricter form of punishment, came into effect only on August 16, 2019.
Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the enhanced punishment could not be applied retrospectively to the accused.
Section 6 of the POCSO Act deals with punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Prior to the 2019 amendment, the section provided for a minimum of 10 years of imprisonment, which could extend to life imprisonment, along with a fine.
After the amendment, however, the law allowed for imprisonment till the remainder of the convict’s natural life in certain aggravated cases.
While examining the legal position, the bench emphasized that applying the amended version of Section 6 to the accused would amount to retrospective punishment, which is not allowed under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.
Article 20(1) guarantees protection against the retrospective application of criminal laws that impose a harsher penalty than what was applicable at the time of the offence.
The court clearly stated:
“The constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute.”
It was observed that the trial court had wrongly applied the enhanced punishment provision introduced by the 2019 amendment.
The court noted that on the date of the incident, May 20, 2019, the law did not provide for a punishment of life imprisonment till the natural life of the convict. Instead, the maximum punishment allowed under the unamended law was life imprisonment in its conventional understanding.
ALSO READ: [Sexual Assault Case] SIT Submits Chargesheet Against Prajwal Revanna, HD Revanna
The bench further observed:
“The sentence of ‘imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life’, as per the amended provision, did not exist in the statutory framework on May 20, 2019, the date of the incident.”
The Supreme Court then modified the sentence. It upheld the man’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but adjusted the sentence to rigorous life imprisonment, as per the unamended version of the Act.
The court concluded:
“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.”
However, the fine of Rs 10,000 imposed by the trial court was maintained and upheld by the Supreme Court.
This judgment was given in response to the man’s appeal against a decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, delivered in September 2023.
ALSO READ: Kerala Gynaecologists Challenge Court Mandate on Sexual Assault Examinations
The High Court had dismissed his plea and upheld the trial court’s decision that sentenced him to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine, under the amended law.
The case originally began in 2019, when the father of the minor survivor filed a police complaint, leading to the man being charged and later convicted under the POCSO Act.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Sexual Assault
