SC Mandates Higher Punishment For Person Convicted Under POCSO
The Supreme Court has ruled that when a person convicted under both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 42 of the POCSO Act mandates the imposition of the higher punishment prescribed under either law. The Court further clarified that Section 42A of the POCSO Act, gives it an overriding effect over other laws. It does not affect this principle, as it only addresses procedural inconsistencies.
Case Background
The case involved an appellant convicted of sexually assaulting his minor daughter. He was found guilty under:
Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC (rape by a relative or person. This was in a position of trust and rape of a woman incapable of giving consent).
Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act (penetrative sexual assault and its punishment).
While the POCSO Act prescribes 10 years to life imprisonment, the IPC mandates life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life for such offences. Following Section 42 of POCSO, the trial court sentenced him under IPC’s provisions, imposing life imprisonment and a fine.
SC’s Ruling on Section 42 and 42A of POCSO
The Court upheld the trial court’s decision to impose the harsher IPC punishment.
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that Section 42A of POCSO. This gives it an overriding effect over other laws, meant IPC’s provisions should not apply. It clarified that Section 42A only applies in cases where POCSO’s procedural provisions conflict with other laws. It does not override the sentencing principle of Section 42, which prioritizes stricter punishment.
High Court’s Error in Enhancing Sentence
The High Court had modified the sentence, ruling that the appellant must serve life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life instead of simple life imprisonment. The Supreme Court found this to be a judicial overreach, as:
No appeal for sentence enhancement was filed by the State.
In an appeal against conviction by the accused, the sentence cannot be increased beyond what was awarded by the trial court.
Final Verdict
- Conviction under IPC and POCSO upheld
- Sentence modified to simple life imprisonment (not remainder of natural life)
- Fine of ₹5,00,000 imposed, payable to the victim
- Clarification that POCSO does not override IPC’s higher punishment provisions
Key Takeaways
When IPC and POCSO overlap, the higher punishment prevails.
Section 42A of POCSO does not affect punishment rules under Section 42.
Courts cannot enhance sentences in appeals filed by the accused unless the State seeks enhancement.
