Supreme Court Reduces Life Term to Twenty Years in POCSO Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Case

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard special leave petitions filed by appellants challenging their convictions by the Special Court (POCSO) and the High Court of Chhattisgarh for multiple offences including aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The appeals questioned both the correctness of conviction and the severity of the sentence "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life" imposed under Section 6.

The Court declined to interfere with the findings of guilt recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court, but it modified the sentence on the limited ground of proportionality and mitigating circumstances. The Court observed that the trial court had imposed life imprisonment "which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life" without considering mitigating factors and that the minimum sentence under Section 6 must inform the exercise of sentencing discretion. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “However, the minimum sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is twenty years. Bearing in mind the fact that the appellants herein were in their early twenties when the incident took place and the fact that now they have completed only five years of incarceration and even for completion of the minimum sentence it would mean another fifteen years, we find that the appellants are now in their mid-twenties and even if the minimum sentence is to be completed they would be in their early forties.” Pursuant to that reasoning the Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part and reduced each appellant's sentence under Section 6 from life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, while leaving the convictions otherwise intact.

Background

The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No.36/2020 of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 342 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Special Court sentenced them to five years for Sections 363 and 366 IPC, one year for Section 342 IPC, and "imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life" along with a fine under Section 6 POCSO. The High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the convictions and sentences by its judgment dated 26.04.2024.

The appellants filed Special Leave Petitions (SLP(Crl.) Nos.16689-16690/2024) before the Supreme Court. Their counsel conceded the conviction was sustainable but urged that the life sentence under Section 6 was disproportionately harsh, noting that the minimum sentence under Section 6 was twenty years and that the appellants, who were in their early twenties at the time of the offence, had already undergone a little over five years of incarceration. The State opposed interference and contended that the High Court had rightly affirmed the trial court's order and that the sentence fell within the statutory range under Section 6.

The Supreme Court examined the text of Section 6 and the sentencing exercise. The Court noted that while Section 6 prescribes imprisonment "which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life", the Court treated the minimum punishment in the facts of the case as twenty years for the purpose of sentencing, and weighed the appellants' youth and the period already served. The Court found no reason to disturb the conviction but held that the "interest of justice would be served" by reducing the life sentence to a term of twenty years, thereby ordering that the sentences run concurrently and disposing of pending applications. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeals were allowed in part.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 797 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.16689-16690/2024) Case Title: PINTU THAKUR @ RAVI ETC. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Md. Farman, AOR; Mr. Salman Khan, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Tanwar, Adv. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR; Mr. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.