Conviction Under POCSO Upheld but Life Sentence Modified for Pre‑Amendment Offence

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal against conviction and sentence arising from a trial in Chhattisgarh, where the appellant challenged his life sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376AB IPC. The limited question before the Court was whether the enhanced sentencing regime introduced by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, which redefined "imprisonment for life" to mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life and raised minimum terms, could be applied to an offence committed on 20 May 2019.

The Court upheld the conviction but found that the amended sentencing provisions could not be applied retrospectively. It held that applying the 2019 amendment to an offence committed before the amendment's commencement would impose a harsher penalty than was permissible at the time of the offence, contrary to Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The Court therefore modified the sentence from "imprisonment for life, meaning imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life" to rigorous imprisonment for life as understood under the unamended statute and maintained the fine of ₹10,000. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute. The Trial Court, in applying the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 Amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, has effectively subjected the appellant to a punishment greater than that which was permissible under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence which is clearly violative of the bar contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India."

Background The prosecution arose from FIR No. 37/2019 lodged on 26 June 2019 at Vishrampur Police Station, Kondagaon, alleging that on 20 May 2019 the appellant had lured and raped a five‑year‑old girl. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, recorded a finding that the appellant had "lured the minor prosecutrix into his house and forcibly committed rape", and convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life under the amended POCSO provision, along with a fine of ₹10,000. The High Court affirmed conviction and sentence, observing that "no leniency could be shown in light of the fact that the victim was a five year old child and the crime committed was of a grave and heinous nature."

The appellant approached this Court by special leave, and the matter was heard only on the question of sentence after notice was limited on 30 September 2024. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the offence predated the 16 August 2019 amendment and that the enhanced minimum and the redefinition of life sentence could not be applied retrospectively. The State opposed any reduction on grounds of the gravity of the offence. The Supreme Court applied Article 20(1), held that the redefinition and enhanced sentence under the 2019 Amendment did not exist at the time of the offence, and found that subjecting the appellant to the amended, harsher penalty violated the constitutional protection against retrospective enhancement of punishment. The conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was affirmed; the sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for life as per the unamended statute, and the fine of ₹10,000 was retained. The appeal was partly allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…..………….OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13834 of 2024; 2025 INSC 892) Case Title: Satauram Mandavi v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment