Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed a criminal appeal, upholding the conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 but modifying the sentence imposed. The Court ruled that the appellant could not be subjected to the enhanced punishment under the amended 2019 provision since the offence was committed prior to its coming into force. The Court held that sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life was unconstitutional under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The sentence was thus reduced to rigorous life imprisonment under the unamended POCSO Act, with the ₹10,000 fine maintained.
Facts
On 26 June 2019, the father of a five-year-old child lodged an FIR alleging that during his and his wife’s absence from home on 20 May 2019, their daughter had gone missing while playing outside the house. When the mother questioned the appellant regarding the child’s whereabouts, he fled. Based on this suspicion, the FIR was registered at Police Station Vishrampur, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured the child into his house and committed rape.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and imposing a fine of ₹10,000. The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime against a five-year-old victim and denying any leniency.
Issues
- Whether the amended Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2019, enhancing the punishment to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, could be retrospectively applied to an offence committed prior to its enactment?
- Whether sentencing the appellant under the amended provision violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended that although the conviction was under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the sentencing court erroneously applied the amended provision, which came into effect on 16 August 2019. Since the offence occurred on 20 May 2019, before the amendment, the enhanced penalty could not be imposed. The retrospective application of a harsher punishment, the appellant argued, violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which bars retrospective criminal penalties.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed any modification in sentence and emphasized the gravity and heinousness of the offence. It argued that the nature of the crime, involving a minor child, warranted no leniency. The prosecution urged the Court to uphold both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.
Analysis of the Law
The Court focused its analysis on Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The unamended Section 6 prescribed rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years, which could extend to life imprisonment. The 2019 amendment introduced “imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life” as a harsher punishment.
The Bench emphasized that Article 20(1) prohibits the imposition of penalties greater than those permissible under the law at the time of the offence. The clause reads:
“No person shall be… subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.”
Accordingly, applying the enhanced punishment under the amended Section 6 to the appellant, whose offence was committed before 16 August 2019, would violate this constitutional safeguard.
Precedent Analysis
While the judgment did not explicitly cite previous cases, it fundamentally relied on Article 20(1) and constitutional jurisprudence against retrospective criminal laws. The principle is well-established in Indian constitutional law that retrospective operation of penal statutes — especially those increasing punishment — is impermissible.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court agreed with the appellant’s submission, observing that:
“The Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute.”
It held that the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 Amendment could not be applied to a crime that occurred on 20 May 2019. Therefore, the sentence of “imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life,” was ultra vires the Constitution in the facts of this case.
The Court clarified that under the unamended Section 6, the sentence could extend to life imprisonment in the conventional sense, but not till the end of the natural life.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, it modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life as contemplated under the unamended POCSO Act. The fine of ₹10,000 was maintained. The appeal was partly allowed, with the modification of sentence limited to the bar under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Implications
This decision reaffirms the constitutional protection under Article 20(1) and clarifies that sentencing courts must apply the penal provisions as they existed on the date of the offence. The judgment will have broader implications for cases where amended provisions prescribe harsher punishments and could safeguard many convicts from retrospective application of enhanced penalties under amended criminal laws.
Referred Case Law Summary
While no previous cases were cited explicitly, the Court relied on Article 20(1) of the Constitution as the central legal basis. The case is significant in reinforcing constitutional jurisprudence that prohibits retrospective application of criminal laws that are prejudicial to the accused.
FAQs
Q1. Can a person be sentenced under a law amended after the offence occurred?
No. As per Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, a person cannot be subjected to a penalty greater than what was applicable at the time of the offence. Retrospective enhancement of punishment is unconstitutional.
Q2. What was the amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act in 2019?
The 2019 amendment introduced a harsher penalty — imprisonment for the remainder of natural life — for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Prior to this, the punishment was rigorous imprisonment up to life.
Q3. What sentence did the Supreme Court ultimately impose in this case?
The Supreme Court reduced the sentence from “remainder of natural life” to “life imprisonment” under the unamended Section 6 of the POCSO Act, aligning it with the law prevailing at the time of the offence.
