Sentencing must align with the law in force at the time of the offence. Appellate courts possess the inherent authority to direct that multiple sentences arising from a single transaction run concurrently to ensure justice, specifically when the trial court fails to specify the nature of the sentence.

JUDGMENT :

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.

1. The only challenge in the instant Appeal is to the sentence meted out to the Appellant, which was for a period of twenty years each, under Sections 5(l) and 5(j) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as amended in 2019 (hereinafter, “POCSO Act”), vide the impugned Order on Sentence dated 08-09-2023.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that, the FIR Exbt-9 was lodged on 26-02-2020 and the child was delivered by the victim of sexual assault, on 30-03-2020. If the dates are computed backwards it is evident that the child was conceived in the month of July, 2019. That, such a circumstance would indicate that, the offence took place before the amendments were inserted in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012, vide the Amendment Act, 2019, w.e.f. 16-08-2019. That prior to the said amendment, the penalty provided under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the offences under Sections 5(l) and 5(j) was ten years, whereas the amendment of 2019 has enhanced it to twenty years. That, in view of the fact that the Prosecution failed to specify the exact date of the offence, and in view of the foregoing submissions, the penalty may be reduced to ten years in terms of the POCSO Act, 2012, instead of twenty years as meted out by the Learned Trial Court, in terms of the 2019 amendment to the Act.

3. Per contra, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no error in the findings and the penalty imposed by the Trial Court.

4. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

5. Vide the impugned Order on Sentence dated 08-09-2023, in S.T. (POCSO) Case No.17 of 2020, the Court ordered as follows;

“3. I have considered the rival submissions and have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the purpose of justice would be served by sentencing the convict as follows:-

(i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years and fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence under Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In default of the payment of fine, he shall undergo additional term of two (2) months simple imprisonment;

(ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of twenty (20) years and fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence under Section 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In default of the payment of fine, he shall undergo additional term of two (2) months simple imprisonment; and (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five (05) years and fine of Rs. 5,000 for the offence under Section 9(l) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In default of the payment of fine, he shall undergo additional term of two (2) months simple imprisonment.

4. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the convict during investigation and trial shall be set off against this sentence.

5. The fine, if recovered shall be made over to the victim as compensation. Further, in terms of Schedule-II to the Sikkim Compensation to Victims (or their Dependents) Scheme, 2021 a sum Rs. 6 lakhs (Rupees Six Lakhs only) is recommended to be awarded to the victim as compensation.”

6. The Prosecution case in the instant matter was that the Appellant, aged about fifty-four years had sexually assaulted the minor victim, aged about fifteen years, resulting in her pregnancy and delivery of a child on 30-03-2020. We find that the evidence