Summary
The Court restored the respondent’s conviction and ten-year rigorous-imprisonment sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve. The established act attracted Section 5(m), and the applicable pre-2019 Section 6 allowed no sentence below ten years. Completion of the reduced sentence and subsequent personal circumstances could not justify departing from that statutory minimum.
Issues
- Whether the established penetrative assault on a child below twelve fell within Section 5(m) POCSO rather than the lesser offence.
- Whether rehabilitation or completion of the High Court’s reduced sentence permitted punishment below the statutory minimum.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3(a) and 5(m), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The unchallenged finding of penile penetration of the ten-year-old child’s mouth established penetrative assault aggravated by the child’s age below twelve. (¶¶ 4, 7, 8, 9, 11)
- Section 6, as applicable before 16 August 2019, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The offence-date provision required at least ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine. The later twenty-year minimum did not apply, and no statutory power permitted reduction below the former minimum. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- The factual findings and the child’s age were undisputed. Those findings necessarily brought the offence within aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m); the High Court erred in treating it as the lesser offence under Section 4. (¶¶ 4, 7, 8, 9, 11)
- The law in force when the offence occurred prescribed ten years’ rigorous imprisonment as the minimum. The harsher amendment effective from 16 August 2019 could not apply to this earlier incident. (¶ 10)
- A mandatory minimum cannot be reduced unless legislation authorises that course. The respondent’s completion of the seven-year sentence, claimed reform and subsequent marriage did not supply such authority. The trial court’s ten-year sentence and Rs.5,000 fine therefore had to be restored. (¶¶ 6, 11, 12, 13)
- The respondent had to surrender before the Special Judge within one month to serve the remaining sentence. In default, the Special Court was to issue a non-bailable warrant immediately and secure his committal to prison. (¶ 13)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and trial court judgment restored, including ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs.5,000 fine under Section 6. Surrender within one month directed to serve the remaining sentence; non-bailable warrant on default.