The Supreme Court has restored the life sentence imposed by the trial court on a man convicted of aggravated penetrative sexual assault against a three-year-old child, holding that the enhanced minimum punishment introduced by the 2019 amendment to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be applied retrospectively to an offence committed in 2016.
The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi clarified that the conviction itself was not under challenge before it; the appeal was confined to the legality of the sentence.
The central question framed by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the substantive sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment by relying upon the 2019 amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The Court answered the question in the negative. It held that the punishment applicable to the accused had to be determined on the basis of the law in force when the offence was committed, and that the enhanced punishment introduced by the 2019 amendment could not retrospectively be applied.
The judgment consequently addresses two important sentencing principles: the constitutional prohibition against retrospectively imposing a harsher criminal punishment and the operation of Section 42 of the POCSO Act where the same conduct attracts punishment under both POCSO and the IPC.
The prosecution case arose from an incident dated February 17, 2016, in Rajnandgaon district of Chhattisgarh. The victim was a three-year-old girl.
According to the prosecution case recorded in the judgment, the child’s father lodged FIR No. 35/2016 at Ambagarh Chowki Police Station after being informed that the child had been taken away and subsequently returned in a distressed condition. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of the child’s parents, other witnesses, the child’s testimony, medical evidence and forensic material.
The investigation followed the registration of the FIR, and the accused was arrested on February 18, 2016. The victim and the accused were medically examined, while material evidence was also seized during the investigation.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajnandgaon, considered the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution. The trial court relied upon the testimony of the child, her parents and the medical and forensic evidence.
The judgment records that medical examination of the child supported the prosecution case regarding the injuries suffered by her. The forensic report also formed part of the evidentiary record considered by the courts.
By judgment dated April 18, 2017, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Considering the gravity of the offence, the trial court imposed life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000 for each offence, with an additional sentence in default of payment of fine. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The accused challenged the conviction and sentence before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
While the High Court upheld the conviction, by judgment dated February 14, 2024, it modified the sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The High Court relied upon the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act and Section 42 of the statute while modifying the sentence.
The accused thereafter approached the Supreme Court. Importantly, when the Supreme Court issued notice on April 13, 2026, it did so specifically on the limited question of the quantum of sentence. The Court therefore expressly declined to reopen the conviction, which had been concurrently recorded by the trial court and High Court.
A major aspect of the Supreme Court’s reasoning concerned the difference between Section 6 of the POCSO Act before and after the 2019 amendment.
Before the amendment, Section 6 prescribed a minimum punishment of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, which could extend to imprisonment for life, along with fine.
The 2019 amendment substantially enhanced the punishment. It increased the minimum imprisonment from 10 years to 20 years and provided that imprisonment for life would mean imprisonment for the remainder of the person’s natural life. The amendment also introduced death as a possible punishment in the provision.
The amendment came into force on September 16, 2019, several years after the offence in the present case.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the enhanced punishment was intended to operate prospectively. The Court referred to Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which protects an accused from being convicted or subjected to a punishment greater than that prescribed by law at the time the offence was committed.
The Court also relied upon its earlier decision in Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, observing that a court cannot impose a sentence which was outside the statutory framework applicable when the offence took place. Accordingly, the pre-2019 version of Section 6 of the POCSO Act had to govern the sentence in the present case.
The Court separately examined the punishment prescribed under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC, as it stood before its subsequent omission.
That provision prescribed rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years, which could extend to imprisonment for life. Significantly, the provision stated that imprisonment for life meant imprisonment for the remainder of the person’s natural life.
The Supreme Court therefore found that Section 376(2)(i) carried a significant sentencing consequence which had to be considered while applying Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
Section 42 of the POCSO Act was another important component of the Court’s analysis.
The provision applies where the same act constitutes an offence under POCSO as well as specified provisions of the IPC. In such circumstances, the offender is liable to punishment under the statute that provides for the greater punishment.
In the present case, the trial court had imposed life imprisonment for both the IPC and POCSO offences, with the sentences running concurrently.
The Supreme Court observed that Section 42 required the punishment providing the greater degree of punishment to prevail. Since Section 376(2)(i) IPC, as applicable to the case, expressly contemplated life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, the provision had to be given due consideration.
However, the Court also considered its earlier jurisprudence concerning life imprisonment, including Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka and Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan, regarding the judicial determination of the actual period to be undergone where a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed.
The Supreme Court also referred to its 2025 decision in Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which involved offences under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and the POCSO Act.
The Court noted that its earlier jurisprudence recognises judicial discretion concerning the period of incarceration in cases where life imprisonment is imposed. It consequently clarified that a life sentence does not automatically mean that the court must impose an express stipulation that the convict remain imprisoned for the entirety of his natural life.
The Supreme Court strongly disagreed with the manner in which the High Court modified the sentence.
It noted that the High Court had itself recognised that the offence was committed before the 2019 amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Nevertheless, it reduced the sentence to 20 years while referring to the amended provision and Section 42 of POCSO.
The Supreme Court found that approach legally untenable because the 2019 amendment, having enhanced the minimum punishment, could not be used against an accused whose offence was committed in 2016.
The Court also criticised the absence of a satisfactory rationale in the High Court’s sentencing decision. It held that the trial court had considered the evidence and had appropriately imposed the maximum statutory punishment available under the applicable law.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s judgment.
The accused was directed to undergo:
- Life imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as it stood prior to the 2019 amendment; and
- Life imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) IPC.
The sentences are to run concurrently and include the period already undergone by the accused. Importantly, the Supreme Court did not attach a stipulation that the imprisonment must continue until the natural life of the accused.
Beyond the sentencing issue, the Supreme Court made broader observations concerning the protection of children from sexual abuse.
The Court observed that such offences have consequences extending beyond the immediate victim and can affect the victim’s emotional well-being, education, self-worth, relationships and ability to live with dignity. It stressed that the impact may also extend to families and society.
The Court emphasised that punishment serves not only to hold offenders accountable but also to deter such offences and reaffirm society’s commitment to protecting children. At the same time, it stressed the importance of timely psychological care, rehabilitation and a supportive environment for child survivors.
The Supreme Court further directed the concerned authorities, including the police, to ensure that the legal process is less intimidating and more reassuring for child victims.
It stressed the need for timely and effective enforcement of justice and continuous protection of child victims throughout the legal process.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
