'Retrospective Application Of Enhanced Punishment Violates Art 20(1)' : Supreme Court Modifies Sentence In POCSO Act Case

The Supreme Court on July 25 set aside the sentence of life imprisonment till the remainder of natural life imposed by the Trial Court retrospectively in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act where the convict was held guilty of raping a 5-year-old minor.

While upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentence only to life imprisonment as per S.6 POCSO before it was amended in 2019.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing challenge to the order by Chhattisgarh High Court which upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Here, the sentence for life imprisonment was as per amended S.6 of POCSO, which meant imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

The present confined itself only to the question of the sentence imposed on the appellant.

The appellant had contended that the trial court erred in retrospectively applying the amended S.6 of POCSO. Notably, before the amendment, the sentence under S.6 was 10 years up to imprisonment for life.

The amended provision states :

"Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death."

The Counsel for the appellant stressed that while the incident occurred on May 20, 2019 the amended provision was enacted on August 16, 2019.

Finding merit in the contention, the Court noted that the trial court was incorrect in applying the amended provision retrospectively. The Court also held that Article 20 (1) of the Constitution expressly bars any retrospective application of a criminal provision in law, especially a penalty imposed.

Article 20(1) states "No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor 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."

The Court held that trial court's order for sentencing was violative of Article 21. It was observed :

"The Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute. The Trial Court, in applying the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 Amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, has effectively subjected the appellant to a punishment greater than that which was permissible under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence which is clearly violative of the bar contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India."

It was held that the amendment to 'imprisonment for life', which includes the remainder of natural life, was not in existence during the time of the commission of the crime and hence only the unamended S.6 POCSO would apply.

"The sentence of "imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life," as per the amended provision, did not exist in the statutory framework on 20.05.2019, the date of the incident. Under the unamended Section 6, the maximum punishment permissible was imprisonment for life in its conventional sense and not imprisonment till the remainder of natural life."

The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant but modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life. The fine of ₹10,000/- was also upheld.

Case Details : SATAURAM MANDAVI v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.| ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 13834 of 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 744

Click here to read the judgment