Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned APP for the State and the learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Surya Nilambari, Advocate.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2025, passed by the learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act), Darbhanga in POCSO G.R. Case No.47 of 2016 (arising out of Bishanpur (Darbhanga) P.S. Case No.86 of 2016), whereby and whereunder while the appellant no. 1 Shatrughan Yadav @ Satrughan Yadav has been convicted under Section 10/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act, 2012”) read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, the appellant no. 2, namely Anil Yadav has been convicted under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

3. By the order of sentence dated 09.09.2025, passed by the Ld. Court of Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act), Darbhanga, the appellant no. 1 Shatrughan Yadav @ Satrughan Yadav has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a term of seven years U/s. 10/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of the same, he has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months. As far as the appellant no. 2, namely Anil Yadav is concerned, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay the same, he has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant no. 2, namely Anil Yadav also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years under Section 6 read with Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the same, he has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months apart from the appellant no.2 having also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the same, he has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

4. The issue which has arisen in the present case is with regard to the sentence awarded by the learned Court of Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act), Darbhanga qua the appellant no. 2, namely Anil Yadav. We find from the impugned order of sentence dated 09.09.2025 that the appellant no.2 has been sentenced to undergo RI for a term which shall not be less than 10 years U/s. 6 R/w. Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 as it stood prior to amendment of the year 2019 with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the same, he has been further directed to undergo SI for six months and similarly, he has also been sentenced to undergo RI for a term which shall not be less than 10 years U/s. 376(2)(n) of the IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay the same, he has been further directed to undergo SI for six months. However, we find from the pre-amended provision contained in Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 that the sentence prescribed thereunder is “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” and more or less, similar sentence is provided for in Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC except that imprisonment for life has been explained to mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life. Thus, apparently the sentence awarded to the appellant no. 2 has not been quantified in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 6(l) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 376(2) (n) of the IPC. In such view of the matter, we had appoi