Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 611

ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDAL
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Sonu Kushwaha – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Mr. Harsh Pratap Shahi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court held that in a case where the victim is a child below twelve years, the minimum sentence under Section 6 applies and cannot be reduced (minimum ten years as applicable before 16 Aug 2019; enhanced to twenty years after but not applicable to incidents before that date) (!) (!) (!) - The Court concluded the act constituted aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m) and that the appropriate punishment was under Section 6, not a lesser offence under Section 4 (!) (!) (!) - The judgment restores the Trial Court’s sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment plus fine, and directs surrender within one month with further enforcement to complete remaining sentence; failure to surrender warrants non-bailable arrest (!) (!)

What is the applicable minimum punishment under the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years?

What is the interpretation of "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" under Section 5 and its relation to Section 6 in the POCSO Act in cases where the incident occurred before the amended minimum or maximum penalties?

What are the Court’s directives regarding surrender and enforcement of the remaining sentence for an offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act?

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the respondent is guilty of an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO Act’).

2. The respondent–accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi who was the Special Judge under the POCSO Act convicted the respondent for all three offences. The respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/. The respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the last two offences, a fine was also imposed.

3. The respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.5415 of 2018 before the High Court o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 611

ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDALState of U. P. – AppellantVersusSonu Kushwaha – Respondent

What is the applicable minimum punishment under the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years?

What is the interpretation of "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" under Section 5 and its relation to Section 6 in the POCSO Act in cases where the incident occurred before the amended minimum or maximum penalties?

What are the Court’s directives regarding surrender and enforcement of the remaining sentence for an offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act?

ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDAL
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Sonu Kushwaha – Respondent