The appeal challenges a High Court judgment that upheld the appellant’s conviction for sexual offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The primary legal question revolves around sentencing, specifically whether the appellant should be punished under the IPC or the POCSO Act when acts overlap, and the scope of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court ultimately affirms the conviction but modifies the sentence, rejecting the High Court’s directive for life imprisonment to mean the remainder of the appellant’s natural life, instead aligning it with the trial court’s original “life imprisonment” and imposing an additional fine for victim compensation.
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3, 4, 42A – POCSO – Offence under POCSO or IPC – Whether the conviction of the appellant ought to have been recorded under the IPC or whether the provisions of the Special law, i.e., Section 42A of POCSO Act, would prevail thereby, vitiating the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC?
Held that the fields of operation of Section 42 and Section 42A are in completely different spheres – Section 42 specifically deals with the quantum of punishment mandating that when a particular act or omission constitutes an offence, both under the POCSO Act and also under the provisions of the IPC or the Information Technology Act, 2000 then, the offender found guilty of the offence would be liable to punishment under the POCSO Act or under the provisions of the IPC whichever provides a punishment of a greater degree – Section 42A of POSCO Act, on the other hand, deals with the procedural aspects and gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the POCSO Act over any other law for the time being in force where, the two acts are inconsistent with each other – Hence, the provisions of Section 42A of POSCO Act, by no stretch of imagination, can be interpreted so as to override the scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., Section 42 of POCSO Act – 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 – 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 – Ends of justice would be served by restoring the judgment of the trial Court and directing that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused, by the trial Court, for the offence under Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act shall stand revived – For the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, as awarded by the trial Court, without the stipulation that the life term will enure till the natural life of the appellant and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default, to further undergo imprisonment of two years – Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
(Para 21 to 23, 30 and 31)
Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh V. State Of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 335: (DoJ 07-03-2025)
