Supreme Court Upholds Convictions Under IPC and POCSO but Narrows Life Sentence and Directs Fine to Victim

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his jail appeal against conviction for sexual offences involving his minor daughter; the limited question on notice to this Court concerned the sentence imposed.

The Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, but modified the sentencing direction given by the High Court. The Bench held that the trial Court was justified in choosing the IPC provisions for sentencing under Section 42 of the POCSO Act where the IPC prescribed a higher punishment, yet the High Court erred in converting the life term into imprisonment “for the remainder of that person’s natural life.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Consequently, we are of the view that conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act is wholly justified. However, we feel that the High Court erred while directing that the appellant would have to serve life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life as provided under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC." The Bench therefore restored the trial Court’s sentence for the POCSO offences, and for the IPC offences affirmed life imprisonment but removed the stipulation that it would extend till the natural life of the appellant; it also imposed an enhanced fine for the IPC counts and directed payment to the victim.

Background

The criminal case arose from an FIR lodged on October 28, 2015 by the accused’s wife alleging that the appellant, father of the victim (then about nine years old), had enticed the child to the rooftop on October 22, 2015 and committed sexual assault, detaining her there by threats. The victim narrated the incident to her grandfather the next morning, which led to police involvement, investigation, arrest and medical examination. Forensic samples were taken and the child was examined under Section 164 CrPC, where she made an emphatic allegation of penetrative sexual assault. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fines; the High Court dismissed the appellant’s jail appeal but clarified that the life sentence under the IPC provisions would mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

On special leave, the appellant’s counsel did not contest guilt but argued that the convictions under both the IPC and POCSO could not stand concurrently because Section 42A of the POCSO Act made the special law override other laws where inconsistent; he contended that, in view of that provision and because Sections 3/4 POCSO did not provide imprisonment for natural life, the appellant could not be sentenced to natural-life imprisonment under the IPC in addition. The State urged affirmation of conviction and the enhanced sentence. The Court analysed Sections 42 and 42A of the POCSO Act, noting that Section 42 mandated application of the law prescribing greater punishment when an act constituted an offence under both statutes, whereas Section 42A “dealt with the procedural aspects and gave an overriding effect” in case of inconsistency. The Bench quoted Section 42A: "The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and, in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of any such law to the extent of the inconsistency." It held that Section 42A could not be read to emasculate the specific operation of Section 42.

As a result, the Court upheld the convictions, directed revival of the trial Court’s sentence on the POCSO counts, and for the IPC counts affirmed life imprisonment but without the stipulation that it would run for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life. The Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for the IPC offences as awarded by the trial Court, imposed a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default two years’ imprisonment), directed that both sentences run concurrently, and ordered that the fine, when deposited, be paid to the victim. The appeal was partially allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 335 (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl) Diary No. 36334 of 2024) Case Title: Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri R. Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): State Counsel