HC Rules: Probation benefit Cannot Extend to Serious POCSO Offences punishable with Life Imprisonment

27 May 2026

By : Prerna Pahwa

Categories : Latest News

Recently, the Delhi High Court held that the benefit of probation cannot ordinarily be extended in serious offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’), particularly where the statute prescribes punishment extending to imprisonment for life. The Court rejected an application seeking the release of a convict on probation after he had been convicted for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The matter arose after the High Court had earlier set aside the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and convicted the Respondent for offences punishable under the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, an application under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was filed seeking release of the convict on probation of good conduct at the stage of sentencing.

The Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the convict was around 21 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, was the sole breadwinner of his family and had no prior criminal antecedents. It was argued that prolonged incarceration would severely impact both his future prospects and the livelihood of his elderly mother.

On the other hand, the State contended that Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribed a minimum sentence of 10 years extending up to life imprisonment, and therefore, the benefit of probation was unavailable. It was further argued that Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act applies only where the accused is below 21 years of age on the date of conviction and sentencing, and not on the date of commission of the offence.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja and Justice Navin Chawla observed, “the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, empowers the Courts to release an offender after admonition in respect of certain specified offences. It also empowers the Courts to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In respect of the offenders under 21 years of age, special provision has been made putting restriction on their imprisonment. However, before granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, it must be shown that the convict, even though, less than 21 years of age, was not guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life.”

The Court further held that Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act applies only if the accused is below 21 years of age on the date of conviction and sentence. The Bench noted, while referring to the case Sudesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, that the Respondent was admittedly above 21 years of age on the date of conviction and therefore could not claim the statutory protection available to youthful offenders.

The Court also emphasised the object behind the enactment of the POCSO Act, observing that the statute was enacted to protect children from sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography. Since Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribed a minimum punishment of 10 years, which could extend to imprisonment for life, the Court held that the Respondent was not entitled to the benefit of probation under Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application seeking probation and imposed the minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with sentences under Sections 363, 366 and 342 of the IPC, all directed to run concurrently. The Bench also awarded compensation of ₹10.50 lakhs to the child victim under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act and Section 396 of the BNSS, observing that although emotional harm cannot be quantified in monetary terms, adequate compensation was necessary considering the gravity of the offence and trauma suffered by the victim.