1. Sexual assault of a minor daughter — Conviction under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act — Appeal against conviction and sentence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 470
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1257 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 3813 of 2025) (Diary No. 36334 of 2024)
Decided On : 07-03-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. B Venkatraman, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. B Venkatraman, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv
IMPORTANT POINTS
Rape of minor girl – When alleged acts or omissions constitute offence both under IPC and POCSO Act then, law which prescribes punishment of greater degree would have to be applied – Fields of operation of Section 42 and Section 42A of POCSO Act are in completely different spheres.
Headnote:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections ¾ read with Sections 42 and 42A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 64(2)(f) and 64(2)(i)] – Rape of minor girl by her father – Life sentence – When alleged acts or omissions constitute offence both under IPC and POCSO Act then, law which prescribes punishment of greater degree would have to be applied – Fields of operation of Section 42 and Section 42A are in completely different spheres – Section 42 specifically deals with quantum of punishment mandating that when a particular act or omission constitutes an offence, both under POCSO Act and also under provisions of IPC or Information Technology Act, 2000 then, offender found guilty of offence would be liable to punishment under POCSO Act or under provisions of IPC whichever provides a punishment of a greater degree – Section 42A of POSCO Act, on other hand, deals with procedural aspects and gives an overriding effect to provisions of POCSO Act over any other law for the time being in force where, the two acts are inconsistent with each other – Provisions of Section 42A of POSCO Act cannot be interpreted so as to override scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., Section 42 of POCSO Act – Conviction of appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act is wholly justified – However, High Court erred while directing that appellant would have to serve life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life as provided under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC – Since, Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC provides for a higher sentence as compared to Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Trial Court was justified in choosing former to award punishment in terms of Section 42 of POCSO Act – Ends of justice would be served by restoring Judgment of trial Court and directing that sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused by trial Court, for offence under Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act shall stand revived, without stipulation that life term will enure till natural life of appellant. (Paras 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Division Bench, while dismissing appeal, affirmed judgment and order dated 16th September, 2016, passed by Trial Court convicting appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Appellant was awarded punishment of imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that appellant was to undergo two months of additional imprisonment on each count.
Findings of Court:
For the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2) (i) of IPC, accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, as awarded by trial Court, without stipulation that life term will enure till natural life of appellant and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default, to further undergo imprisonment of two years. Both sentences shall run concurrently.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether special law (POCSO Act) overrides general law (IPC) for overlapping offences and whether the High Court can enhance sentence rigor in an appeal against conviction. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Section 42 POCSO mandates applying the punishment of greater degree between IPC and POCSO; Section 42A deals with procedural inconsistency, not sentencing quantum. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Where an act constitutes an offence under both IPC and POCSO Act, the punishment of the greater degree shall be applied per Section 42 POCSO. (Para 19 , 21 , 22 )
5. Appeal partially allowed — Sentence of life imprisonment restored without the stipulation of remainder of natural life — Fine increased. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
6. How is punishment determined when an act constitutes an offence under both the IPC and the POCSO Act?
Under Section 42 of the POCSO Act, when an act or omission constitutes an offence under both the IPC and the POCSO Act, the offender shall be liable to punishment under the law that provides for punishment of a greater degree. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 )
7. Does Section 42A of the POCSO Act override the sentencing mandate of Section 42?
No. Section 42 specifically governs the quantum of punishment, whereas Section 42A deals with procedural aspects and the overriding effect of the Act in case of inconsistency. Section 42A cannot be interpreted to override the enabling provisions of Section 42. (Para 21 , 22 )
8. Can a court specify that a life sentence means imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in an appeal against conviction?
While courts have discretion to award life imprisonment, specifying it as the remainder of natural life increases the rigor of the sentence by removing the possibility of early release. Such a direction may be improper if it effectively enhances the punishment in an appeal against conviction. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 )
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep Mehta, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. This appeal, preferred on behalf of the appellant-accused1[For short, ‘appellant’], takes an exception to the judgment dated 2nd August, 2019, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad2[Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’] dismissing Jail Appeal No. 6590 of 2016 preferred by the appellant.
5. The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.2, Fatehpur3[Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘trial Court’] in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 236 of 2015 registered at Police Station Chandpur, District Fatehpur, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 18604[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 /4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20125[Hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’]. The appellant was awarded punishment of imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment of aforesaid fine, it was ordered that the appellant was to undergo two months of additional imprisonment on each count.
6. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh, is the father of victim (PW-2) who was of about 9 years at the time of the incident. On 28th October, 2015, an FIR6[(Exh. Ka.1) FIR Case Crime No. 236 of 2015] came to be lodged by the wife of the appellant, Smt. Rajani, at P.S. Chandpur, District Fatehpur, alleging inter alia, that she had gone to her parental house about two months ago with her youngest son Krishna, aged about 2 years, leaving her minor daughter, the victim herein, aged about 9 years, and a son named Vishnu, aged about 4 years at her matrimonial house in the custody of her husband, i.e., the appellant. On 22nd October, 2015 at about 8:00 p.m., the appellant enticed the minor victim (PW-2) and took her to the rooftop and committed sexual assault upon the child. She was detained on the roof by threatening her. The minor victim came down from the roof in the morning and narrated the whole incident to her grandfather, Ram Naresh Singh (PW-3), who, in turn, telephonically informed the informant about the occurrence. The appellant went absconding after the incident. The informant (PW-1) got frightened because of the incident and did not go to her matrimonial home. She somehow mustered the courage and approached the police station along with her father Ranjeet Singh and father-in-law, Ram Naresh Singh (PW-3), as well as the victim and filed the FIR7[Supra note 4] against the appellant. It was, inter alia, urged in the FIR that the child victim should be medically examined. It was also stated in the FIR that a day prior to the lodging of the report, the informant had approached the District Headquarter, Fatehpur from where she was redirected to approach P.S. Chandpur for lodging the FIR.
7. Investigation was undertaken by Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-7), Investigating Officer (I.O.). The minor victim was subjected to medical examination by Dr. Manisha Shukla (PW-4) who opined that no external injury was found on the body of the victim. On internal examination, redness was seen present over the labia minora in the vagina of the victim and her hymen was intact. Forensic material was collected from the oral, vaginal, vulval and anal swab of the minor victim, slide was prepared and sent for pathological examination, D.N.A. mapping and examination of presence of spermatozoa. The place of the incident was inspected, the site plan was prepared and accordingly, the appellant was arrested.
8. The certificate of date of birth was collected from the school. The child was examined under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19738[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘CrPC’] wherein she made an emphatic allegation of penetrative sexual assault against t
