The benefit of probation is unavailable to offenders convicted under special enactments with mandatory minimum sentences, and the age threshold for youthful offender probation is strictly determined at the date of conviction rather than the time of the commission of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. Vide our judgment dated 04th May, 2026, the present appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment dated 18th December, 2019, passed by the learned Trial Court, has been set aside and respondent Deepak has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 363/366/342 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 [“IPC”] and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO Act”].

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent/convict and the learned Additional PP on the point of quantum of sentence as also on an application under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, seeking release on probation of good conduct.

3. The learned counsel for respondent/convict submits that the age of the convict was 21 years at the time of commission of offence. It is further submitted that the convict is the sole bread-earner of his family, and his incarceration at this stage, would not only adversely affect his future prospects but would also cause immense economic hardship to his 72-year old mother, who is suffering from age-related ailments. It is further submitted that the convict is presently working as a daily wage worker at a flex shop and earns approximately Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month.

4. The learned counsel further submits that the incident pertains to the year 2014 and that victim as also the convict are now settled in their respective lives. It is also submitted that respondent/convict is a first time offender, with no prior criminal antecedents. Request has therefore been made for taking a lenient view and for release of the convict on probation of good conduct. In support, he places reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar , 2024 INSC 448.

5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State submits that since Section 6 of POCSO Act provides for a minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment, the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given, and in support of his submission, he places reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Prathap & Anr. CRL. APPEAL 1335/2017. The learned APP further submits that the POCSO Act came into force w.e.f. 14th November, 2012, that is, subsequent to the coming into force of the Probation of Offender Act, and therefore, Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable in the present case.

6. He further submits that even Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act would not apply in the present case, as on the date of punishment, the age of the respondent admittedly is more than 21 years.

7. The learned APP further submits that Section 6 of the POCSO Act provides for punishment with imprisonment upto life, and therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of probation and respondent does not deserve any leniency.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

9. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as applicable at the relevant time, provided punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

10. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, empowers the Courts to release an offender after admonition in respect of certain specified offences. It also empowers the Courts to release on probation, in all suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment