The Supreme Court refused to lower the 20-year jail term of a 23-year-old convicted for sexually assaulting a 6-year-old, firmly holding that courts cannot override the minimum punishment mandated under the POCSO Act. The Court stressed that in cases of such grave offences, especially after the 2019 amendment, the law leaves no room for judicial leniency.
The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court challenging a judgment dated January 8, 2024, passed by the Bombay High Court, which had upheld his conviction and sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The offence pertained to the aggravated sexual assault of a minor girl, aged six years at the time of the incident.
Before the Supreme Court, the convict’s counsel pleaded for leniency, urging the Court to exercise its inherent powers to reduce the sentence on account of "extraordinary circumstances". It was submitted that the petitioner, being only 23 years old, would lose the most productive years of his life if forced to serve the entire term. Further, counsel pointed out a delay of six days in the lodging of the FIR, and alleged that both parents of the victim, being medical assistants, failed to notice injuries or signs of assault on the child.
In response, Justice BV Nagarathna, addressing the contentions, remarked, "What is the minimum punishment? 20 years. Both Courts have granted that… There is medical evidence as well. You have been granted 20 years under POCSO and not under Section 376 [IPC]. We cannot reduce the sentence if it's 20 years. What extraordinary circumstances? Every case [you say it's extraordinary circumstances]."
She further emphasized that the incident took place after the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act, which significantly increased the punishment for such offences, "It is a heinous offence, sexual assault on a 6-year-old minor. It is a Parliamentary provision which mandates 20 years, how can Court reduce?"
The Court also noted that the plea of juvenility had already been rejected after verifying that the petitioner was over 18 years of age at the time of the offence. After considering all submissions and statutory mandates, the Court concluded that there was no scope for judicial discretion in reducing the punishment below the minimum prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, reiterating that courts are bound by statutory minimums in cases of heinous offences under special legislations like the POCSO Act, especially when the Parliament has consciously enhanced the punishment.
Picture Source :
