A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma
Introduction
This case concerns the interpretation of Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), especially after the 2019 amendment, which prescribes a minimum punishment of 20 years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The petitioner, convicted for such an offence against a 6-year-old child, approached the Supreme Court under a Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking reduction of sentence on the grounds of “extraordinary circumstances.”
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Section 6 – Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault (Amended in 2019: Minimum 20 years, extendable to life or death)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Now Section 64 of BNS,2023)
- Section 376 – (Not applied in this case but mentioned during arguments for comparison)
- Constitution of India
- Article 136 – Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court
You can also read the Judgement of A Landmark Case on Triple Talaq (Popularly known as ‘The Shah Bano Case’)
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Sachin, aged 23 at the time of sentencing, was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the Trial Court for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 6-year-old girl. The incident occurred after the 2019 amendment to POCSO Act, which enhanced the minimum punishment for such offences. The Trial Court and the Bombay High Court both imposed the minimum mandatory sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The FIR was lodged 6 days after the incident. The petitioner raised a plea of juvenility, which was rejected on the ground that he was above 18 years at the time of the offence.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court can reduce the statutory minimum sentence of 20 years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (as amended in 2019)?
- Whether the petitioner’s age and surrounding circumstances qualify as “extraordinary” to warrant a reduced sentence under the Court’s inherent powers?
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioner was only 23 years old and serving 20 years in prison would destroy his future. Pleaded for judicial leniency and sympathy citing “extraordinary circumstances”. Argued that there was unusual delay in filing the FIR (6 days), and the victim’s medical assistant parents failed to notice injuries, which raised doubts about the veracity and promptness of the complaint. Sought application of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum.
Contentions of the Respondent
The conviction was based on reliable medical and testimonial evidence, and both lower courts had granted the minimum mandatory punishment. The 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act was enacted by Parliament to deter heinous crimes against children, and the minimum sentence of 20 years is non-negotiable. No extraordinary mitigating factors exist to invoke leniency. The plea of juvenility was already rejected.
Court's Analysis
The Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma emphasized that Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as amended in 2019, prescribes a minimum punishment of 20 years, and courts do not have discretion to reduce it further. The Court observed that the incident involved a heinous sexual offence against a 6-year-old child, which must be treated with the utmost seriousness. Justice Nagarathna asked rhetorically, "What extraordinary circumstances? Every case [you say it's extraordinary circumstances]… It is a Parliamentary section which mandates 20 years. How can the Court reduce?" The court noted the existence of medico-legal evidence supporting the prosecution case and confirmed that the incident took place after the 2019 amendment. The argument regarding delay in filing the FIR and the lack of observation by medical assistant parents did not outweigh the legislative mandate or cast reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that the statutory minimum punishment of 20 years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act cannot be reduced, even under the plea of “extraordinary circumstances.” The Bombay High Court's decision dated 8 January 2024 was upheld. The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of sentencing under the amended POCSO Act and refused to invoke any discretionary or inherent jurisdiction.
