The Supreme Court emphasized that courts cannot impose sentences lesser than the minimum punishments prescribed in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, observed that the POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for child abuse offenses.
The case involved an appeal against the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for an offense under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Allahabad High Court had reduced the conviction to an offense under Section 4 of the Act and subsequently reduced the sentence. However, the Supreme Court found that the accused had committed an offense of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, warranting the imposition of the minimum sentence prescribed by Section 6.
The bench held that when a penal provision states “shall not be less than,” the court cannot impose a lesser sentence unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling it to do so. As the POCSO Act does not provide for such discretion, the court must impose the minimum sentence. The court emphasized the need for stringent punishment in cases of child abuse, considering the long-lasting impact on the victim’s life.
In setting aside the judgment of the High Court and restoring the Trial Court’s decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that the POCSO Act leaves no room for leniency in sentencing. The Court recognized the lifelong impact on the victim and the importance of safeguarding the healthy growth of the child.
This case serves as a reminder of the gravity of child abuse offenses and the imperative to impose the prescribed minimum punishments under the POCSO Act.
