The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal clarified that under Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, half of life imprisonment would mean imprisonment for 10 years. (Suresh Kashinath Kamble vs The State of Maharashtra)
The bench was dealing with a case as to how much sentence the convict in the case had to undergo w.r.t the judgment passed under section 511 which says a person who attempts to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment shall serve half of the life imprisonment.
Facts of the case
The man was convicted for rape under POCSO act and he had gone in appeal before the HC in 2017. In January 2018 the HC had quashed his conviction for rape under section 376 IPC and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under section 6 of POCSO and instead convicted him for a lesser offence under section 18 of POCSO (punishment for attempt to commit an offence) read with section 6 of POCSO and under section 511 of Indian Penal Code read with section 376 (2) IPC. The HC had directed him to "suffer rigorous imprisonment for one half of the imprisonment for life" as provided under these sections.
The Registry of the Court had received a letter from the Superintendent, Kolhapur Central Prison because he could not understand exactly how much sentence the convict had to undergo. The Superintendent approached the Sessions Court of Sangli, however, the additional judge asked the Superintendent to approach the High Court since the order was passed by the High Court.
Section 18 of POCSO says anyone attempting to commit a POCSO offence will be punished with one half of the life imprisonment or of the longest term it attracts. Similarly, an offence under section 511 says a person who attempts to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment shall serve half of the life imprisonment.
Contention of the Parties
Shri Patil the amicus curiae relied on certain provisions of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He also relied on certain judgments. He submitted that Section 2(2) of POCSO Act and Section 57 of IPC cover the issue completely. Apart from that a Single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Vithal Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra has also clarified the issue. He submitted that these provisions and the earlier judgment were clear and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Superintendent of Jail to seek any guidance from this Court in this behalf. He submitted that the Superintendent should have approached the Law & Judiciary Department and the Home Department for seeking guidance instead of approaching this Court when there was no ambiguity or confusion in the operative part of the judgment.
Learned APP also supported the submissions of Shri Patil.
Courts Observation and order
The court at the very outset observed, "The operative part of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.272/2017 reproduces the wording used in both these sections. Therefore, there was no ambiguity or confusion as far as the operative part of the judgment and order dated 25.1.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.272/2017 is concerned. The Jail Superintendent is expected to execute this sentence by following the operative part of the order.
The wording ‘life imprisonment is not defined under POCSO Act. However, those words are used under IPC and, therefore, reference will have to be made to IPC provisions and they will have to be relied on”
The court referred to Section 57 of the IPC to determine the meaning of life imprisonment which states that : “Section 57. Fractions of terms of Punishment.-- In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years.”
The bench taking note of the same remarked, "This section leaves no scope of doubt, ambiguity or confusion as to how the term should be calculated when 7 of 9 the accused is sentenced to suffer half of the life
imprisonment. It provides that in such case when the fractions of imprisonment for life is to be calculated then life imprisonment should be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years. Thus, half of life imprisonment in such cases would mean imprisonment for ten year."
The bench disposing of the case remarked, "Hence, no further explanation or guidance is
necessary. The Jail Superintendent can seek guidance from these provisions and the judgment referred herein and calculate the exact sentence which the appellant has to undergo."
Read Judgment @Latestllaws.com
Picture Source :
