2026 Supreme(Bom) 485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Rajnish R. Vyas, J.
Santosh Maroti Bhandare - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 2024, Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2024
Decided On : 06-02-2026

Appellate court imposing statutory minimum sentence below which trial court erred is not enhancement but mandatory correction; valid under CrPC Section 386 for POCSO Section 6 and IPC 376(2)(n) convictions on child victim.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3, 5(l), 6, 29, 30, 42, 42A - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375, 376(2)(n), 363, 366A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 28, 235, 354, 372, 386 - Aggravated penetrative sexual assault on child - Conviction under Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 and Section 376(2)(n) upheld - Trial Court awarded 7 years RI, less than statutory minimum of 20 years under Section 6 and 10 years under Section 376(2)(n) - Appellate Court can impose statutory minimum sentence under Section 386 without it amounting to enhancement, as it corrects illegality of awarding below mandated floor - Consent of minor invalid - Age proved by birth certificate corroborated by records - Victim testimony reliable, supported by medical evidence of old hymen tears consistent with intercourse - Presumptions under Sections 29, 30 triggered and unrebutted - Acquittal under Sections 363, 366A maintained as based on proper appreciation. (Paras 2, 27, 40-44, 56-61, 86-91)

(B) Sentencing - Statutory minimum vs enhancement - Minimum sentence mandatory, automatic on proof of guilt; no judicial discretion below floor - Enhancement increases beyond minimum to maximum; imposing minimum corrects Trial Court error, not enhancement - Appellate power under Section 386 includes altering extent of sentence to lawful minimum. (Paras 56-63)

Facts of the case:
Victim, aged 14 years 2 months, lured by accused promising marriage while eating street food, taken by car then motorcycle to another city, bus to distant place, room hired where forcible penetrative sexual assaults committed on two consecutive nights - Police rescued pair, FIR registered, investigation confirmed age via birth certificate, medical exam showed old hymen tears, forensic reports - Trial Court convicted under relevant sections, sentenced 7 years RI and fine, acquitted of kidnapping offences - Accused appealed conviction; victim appealed for minimum sentence.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution proved foundational facts beyond doubt; accused failed to rebut presumptions - Greater punishment under Section 42 applies - Accused to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment.

Issues: (1) Validity of conviction and sentence by Trial Court? (2) Does imposing statutory minimum by Appellate Court amount to enhancement under Section 386?

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory minimum sentence imposition by appellate court is mandatory correction to lawful floor, not discretionary enhancement; distinguishes increase within range from base mandated punishment - Victim under 18 incapable of consent; repeated assaults on child attract aggravated provisions with irrebuttable presumptions absent effective defence.

Result: Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction maintained; sentence modified to statutory minimum of 20 years RI under Section 6; appeal for sentence allowed in part; acquittal on other counts upheld.