In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that when an offender is convicted under both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the punishment prescribed under the law with a higher sentence should prevail. The Court held that Section 42 of the POCSO Act mandates that in case of overlapping offences, the statute with a stricter penalty must be applied.
The judgment was delivered in the case of Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. (Diary No. 36334 of 2024)], arising from a special leave petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and restored the trial court’s sentence while setting aside the High Court’s enhancement of punishment.
Background of the Case
The case involved Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh, who was convicted for raping his own minor daughter, a crime that shook public conscience. The heinous incident took place on October 22, 2015, when the accused, in the absence of his wife, sexually assaulted his nine-year-old daughter at their home in Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh.
The victim narrated the ordeal to her grandfather, who, along with the child’s mother, lodged an FIR (Case Crime No. 236 of 2015) at Police Station Chandpur, Fatehpur. Medical examination confirmed signs of sexual abuse. The accused was arrested, and a charge sheet was filed under:
Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC (which deal with aggravated rape, including assault by a person in a position of trust)
Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act (which prescribe punishments for penetrative sexual assault against minors).
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, sentenced the accused to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹25,000. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court, in its judgment dated August 2, 2019, affirmed the conviction but enhanced the punishment to “life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.” This enhancement was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the conviction of the accused should be recorded under IPC, POCSO Act, or both?
Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the punishment to imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s life?
Interpretation of Sections 42 and 42A of the POCSO Act in cases where both IPC and POCSO Act are applicable.
Supreme Court’s Observations & Ruling
The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta analyzed Sections 42 and 42A of the POCSO Act and reaffirmed that when an act constitutes an offence under both the IPC and the POCSO Act, the punishment under the law prescribing a higher sentence should be applied.
Key Observations by the Court:
“When an act or omission constitutes an offence punishable under both IPC and POCSO Act, the offender shall be sentenced under the law that provides for greater punishment.”
“Section 42 of POCSO ensures that an offender is not punished twice but is given the more stringent punishment.”
“Section 42A of POCSO provides overriding effect in case of inconsistency, but it does not override the principle laid down in Section 42 regarding higher punishment.”
Based on these principles, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act but ruled that the High Court erred in modifying the sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.
The Court restored the trial court’s sentence of life imprisonment but removed the stipulation that the sentence would last until the end of the convict’s natural life. Instead, the Court directed that the accused shall serve a fixed term of life imprisonment with no automatic remission and imposed an enhanced fine of ₹5,00,000, to be given to the victim.
