Summary
The Supreme Court set aside enhancement of a POCSO sentence from seven to ten years in the accused’s appeal because no notice or opportunity to oppose enhancement had been given. Although a High Court may exercise suo motu revisional powers even without a State appeal, it must follow the prescribed safeguards. The Court rejected a further reduction to five years, considering the evidence and seriousness of the offence against a seven-year-old child, and otherwise affirmed the High Court judgment.
Issues
- Whether sentence could be enhanced in the accused’s appeal without notice.
- Whether absence of a State appeal excluded the High Court’s revisional power.
- Whether the seven-year sentence should be reduced further.
Provisions considered
- Section 386(b) and first proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973An accused’s conviction appeal does not authorise enhancement under clause (b), and enhancement requires an opportunity to show cause. (¶ 10–15)
Held
- The High Court had enhanced imprisonment without issuing notice, a fact not disputed by the State. The enhancement therefore failed to comply with the prescribed procedure. (¶ 10–15)
- Absence of a State enhancement appeal does not prevent the High Court from using its suo motu revisional jurisdiction in an appropriate case. However, notice and an opportunity to be heard are indispensable before exercising that power to the convict’s prejudice. (¶ 12–14)
- The child’s testimony, corroborating witnesses and medical evidence supported conviction. The seriousness of the offence justified the seven-year sentence, and no further reduction to the asserted five-year minimum was warranted. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Enhancement from seven to ten years set aside; seven years under the POCSO Act and one month under Section 341 IPC maintained. The remainder of the High Court judgment affirmed.