SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1111

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Satauram Mandavi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3179 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No. 13834 of 2024)
Decided On : 25-07-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Atul Jha, A.A.G. Mr. Abhishek Pandey Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Sentence – Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute.

Headnote:

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376AB – Constitution of India – Article 20(1) – Rape of girl child – Life imprisonment for remainder of natural life, along with fine – Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute – Trial Court, in applying enhanced sentence introduced by 2019 Amendment to Section 6 of POCSO Act, has effectively subjected appellant to a punishment greater than that which was permissible under law in force at the time of commission of offence which is clearly violative of bar contained in Article 20(1) of Constitution of India – Sentence of "imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life," as per amended provision, did not exist in statutory framework on the date of incident – Under unamended Section 6, maximum punishment permissible was imprisonment for life in its conventional sense and not imprisonment till remainder of natural life – Conviction of appellant under Section 6 of POCSO Act upheld and sentence modified to that of rigorous imprisonment for life. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal arises from judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby appellant’s appeal challenging judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021 rendered by Trial Court was dismissed. By said judgment, appellant was convicted under Section 376AB of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to imprisonment for life, meaning imprisonment for remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

Findings of Court:

Since offence was committed on 20.05.2019, amended provision of Section 6 of POCSO Act, which came into force on 16.08.2019, could not have been applied to his case.

Result : Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant’s appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021 rendered by the Trial Court was dismissed. By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC.] and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [POCSO] and sentenced to imprisonment for life, meaning imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

3.1. On 26.06.2019, the father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) lodged FIR No. 37/2019 at Police Station Vishrampur, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. He stated that on 20.05.2019, he, his wife, and mother had gone to attend a marriage ceremony in the village, leaving their two children at home. The prosecutrix, then aged about 5 years, was playing outside the house. When his wife was later unable to locate their daughter, she went to the appellant’s house and questioned him about her whereabouts. Upon being confronted, the appellant fled.

3.2. The FIR was registered against the appellant alleging that he had lured the prosecutrix to his house and committed rape upon her.

3.3. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

3.4. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the appellant had lured the minor prosecutrix into his house and forcibly committed rape on her. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine.

3.5. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, affirmed the conviction and sentence. It recorded that no leniency could be shown in light of the fact that the victim was a five year old child and the crime committed was of a grave and heinous nature.

3.6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has approached this Court.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. By order dated 30.09.2024, notice was issued limited to the question of sentence.

6. The submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the incident occurred on 20.05.2019. While the conviction is under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 16.08.2019, enhanced the minimum sentence to 20 years and redefined "imprisonment for life" to mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life. It is the appellant’s contention that the sentencing court erred in applying the amended provisions retrospectively, as the incident in question took place prior to the amendment.

7. The State, opposing any modification in sentence, contends that the appellant does not deserve any leniency considering the nature and gravity of the offence committed.

8. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, prior to the 2019 amendment, read as under:

    “6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.”

9. This Court, having found no merit in the challenge to conviction, had confined its notice to the question of sentencing. However, we find merit in the appellant’s submission that since the offence was committed on 20.05.2019, the amended provision of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which came into force on 16.08.2019, could not have been applied to his case.

10. In this regard, Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India is relevant and reads as under:

    “20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences –

    (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top