The Supreme Court of India, in Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P., upheld the conviction of an accused for sexually assaulting his minor daughter but modified the sentence, ruling that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by enhancing the punishment without a State appeal.
NEW DELHI: In a recent judgment delivered in the case titled Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P. , the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of an accused for sexually assaulting his minor daughter but modified the sentence imposed by the High Court, which had directed that the appellant serve life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
The Court held that while life imprisonment was justified, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by enhancing the punishment without any appeal from the State.
The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, also imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid as compensation to the victim.
Background of the Case
The case involved the conviction of the appellant-accused for sexually assaulting his minor daughter, resulting in his conviction under:
- Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Punishment for rape by a relative or a person in a position of trust.
- Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC — Punishment for rape of a woman incapable of giving consent, particularly in cases of minors.
- Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Punishment for penetrative sexual assault on a minor.
The trial court, in adherence to Section 42 of the POCSO Act, had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under the IPC, since the punishment prescribed under Section 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC (life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life) was more severe than the punishment provided under Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act (minimum 10 years and maximum life imprisonment).
Appeal Before the High Court
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court through a Jail Appeal, challenging the sentence awarded by the trial court. The High Court, while upholding the conviction, enhanced the sentence by clarifying that the appellant would serve life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without any possibility of early release. This enhancement was made without any appeal from the State for an increased sentence.
The High Court justified this enhancement by interpreting Section 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC, which prescribe that in cases of aggravated sexual assault by a person in a position of trust, the offender should undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
Appeal Before the Supreme Court
Dissatisfied with the enhanced sentence, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India, raising two primary contentions:
- Applicability of Section 42A of the POCSO Act: The appellant contended that Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which provides overriding effect to the POCSO Act, should have been applied in his case. Accordingly, the punishment under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act (minimum 10 years and maximum life imprisonment) should have been preferred instead of the life imprisonment under the IPC.
- Illegality of Sentence Enhancement by the High Court: The appellant further argued that the High Court acted without jurisdiction when it enhanced the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, despite the absence of a cross-appeal by the State for enhancement. It was argued that in a convict’s appeal against conviction, the appellate court does not have the power to enhance the sentence unless specifically sought by the State.
Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was confronted with two key issues for determination:
- Whether Section 42A of the POCSO Act Overrides Section 42 in Cases of Overlapping Offences?
The appellant contended that Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which provides an overriding effect to the POCSO Act, should prevail over any other law, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This would mean that the punishment under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act (10 years to life imprisonment) should have been applied instead of life imprisonment under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument and reaffirmed that:
- Section 42 of the POCSO Act explicitly states that in cases where the same act constitutes an offence under both IPC and POCSO Act, the law providing for greater punishment must apply.
- Section 42A of the POCSO Act is limited to resolving inconsistencies between the POCSO Act and any other law but does not override Section 42 in cases where a higher punishment is available under another statute.
- Since Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC prescribed a higher punishment (life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life), the trial court was correct in convicting the appellant under the IPC.
- Whether the High Court Had the Power to Enhance the Sentence Without a State Appeal?
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved the enhancement of the sentence made by the High Court. The Court observed that:
- In an appeal against conviction filed by the accused, the appellate court is generally limited to reviewing the conviction or reducing the sentence.
- Unless the State files a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence, the High Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the sentence.
- By increasing the sentence from simple life imprisonment to life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction.
Precedents
The Supreme Court placed reliance on the precedents laid down in:
- Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka – which recognized that courts can impose fixed-term sentences in cases of life imprisonment without falling into the “rarest of rare” category.
- Navas v. State of Kerala – which held that enhancement of sentence without a State appeal is violative of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court modified the sentence, setting aside the direction that the appellant shall serve life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and restored the original sentence of life imprisonment as awarded by the trial court.
Clarification Regarding Life Imprisonment
The Supreme Court also provided clarification on the interpretation of life imprisonment under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC. The Court held that:
- Although life imprisonment under these sections may extend to the remainder of the convict’s natural life, there is no absolute mandate requiring courts to always award imprisonment till the end of natural life.
- The trial court’s sentence of life imprisonment without stipulation of “remainder of natural life” was legally justified, and the High Court exceeded its powers in clarifying it otherwise.
Compensation to the Victim
Recognizing the gravity of the offence and the trauma suffered by the minor victim, the Supreme Court additionally imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the appellant, to be paid as compensation to the victim. The Court emphasized the importance of financial compensation in cases of sexual offences against children.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Refusal of Medical Test by Rape Victim Can Lead to Adverse Inference
Judgment of the Supreme Court
In conclusion, the Supreme Court:
- Upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act.
- Modified the sentence, setting aside the High Court’s direction to extend life imprisonment to the remainder of natural life, and restored the life imprisonment as imposed by the trial court.
- Imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the appellant, to be paid to the victim as compensation.
- Partly allowed the appeal, affirming the conviction but modifying the sentence.
The judgment serves as a significant precedent reaffirming that enhancement of sentence in an accused’s appeal without a State appeal for enhancement is impermissible and also clarifies the scope of Section 42 and Section 42A of the POCSO Act.
The judgment is significant as it reaffirms the principle that
“when an offence falls under both the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, the law providing a higher degree of punishment must prevail as per Section 42 of the POCSO Act”
The ruling further clarifies that Section 42A, which provides the POCSO Act with overriding authority, is limited to situations where there is an inconsistency between the POCSO Act and other laws, but it does not negate the application of Section 42.
The judgment also strengthens the procedural principle that in an appeal against conviction filed by an accused, a higher court cannot enhance the sentence unless specifically requested by the State through an appeal for enhancement. This ruling ensures that the accused’s right to a fair trial is not violated.
Cause Title: Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of UP
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 335
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate R Balasubramanian, AOR Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates B Venkatraman, Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma
Respondent: AOR Adarsh Upadhyay, Advocates Aman Pathak, Pallavi Kumari, Shashank Pachauri
READ JUDGEMENT:
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
