Supreme Court Clarifies Sentencing Under POCSO Act and IPC: Higher Punishment Prevails

 

Supreme Court Clarifies Sentencing Under POCSO Act and IPC: Higher Punishment Prevails
By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the interplay between the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in cases where an offender is convicted under both statutes. The Court held that when an act constitutes an offence under both laws, the offender must be sentenced under the provision that prescribes the higher degree of punishment. This decision reinforces the principle that Section 42 of the POCSO Act mandates the imposition of the more severe penalty, whether under the POCSO Act or the IPC.

Background of the Case

The case involved an appellant who was convicted for sexually assaulting his minor daughter. The trial court found him guilty under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC, which deal with rape by a relative or person in a position of trust and rape of a woman incapable of giving consent, respectively. Additionally, he was convicted under Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, which pertain to penetrative sexual assault and its punishment. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment under the IPC, along with a fine.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence before the Allahabad High Court, which upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. Dissatisfied with this enhancement, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the POCSO Act, being a special law, should override the IPC under Section 42A, and that the High Court had erred in enhancing the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant should be sentenced under the IPC or the POCSO Act, given the overlapping nature of the offences. The Court also examined whether the High Court had the authority to enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused, especially in the absence of an appeal for enhancement by the State.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court referred to Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which states that when an act constitutes an offence under both the POCSO Act and the IPC, the offender shall be liable to punishment under the law that provides for the greater degree of punishment. The Court noted that the IPC provisions (Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i)) prescribe a more severe punishment—life imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life—compared to the POCSO Act, which provides for a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment.

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which gives the Act an overriding effect over other laws, should apply. It clarified that Section 42A deals with procedural aspects and cannot override the substantive provisions of Section 42, which explicitly mandates the imposition of the higher punishment.

Enhancement of Sentence

The Court also addressed the issue of sentence enhancement by the High Court. It held that while the trial court had the discretion to award life imprisonment, the High Court could not enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused, especially without an appeal for enhancement by the State. The Court relied on precedents, including Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Navas v. State of Kerala, which allow courts to impose fixed-term sentences in cases where life imprisonment is awarded but the case does not fall under the “rarest of rare” category.

The Supreme Court modified the sentence, holding that the appellant would serve life imprisonment (as awarded by the trial court) but without the stipulation that it would extend to the remainder of his natural life. Additionally, the Court imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, to be paid to the victim.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the principle of proportionality in sentencing and clarifies the relationship between the POCSO Act and the IPC. By holding that the higher punishment must prevail in cases of overlapping offences, the Supreme Court has reinforced the legislative intent behind Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The decision also serves as a reminder that courts must exercise caution when enhancing sentences, particularly in appeals filed by the accused.

Case Title: Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2025 INSC 335