Bombay High Court Upholds Mandatory Minimum Sentence in POCSO Case, Overturns Lower Court Decision
The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad bench has delivered a landmark ruling, emphasizing that courts cannot award sentences below the statutory minimum prescribed by law. This decision came as the court sentenced a rape convict to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, significantly increasing the punishment from the 7-year term initially imposed by a special court in Nanded on June 20, 2024.
Appellate Court Exercises Powers to Correct Sentencing Error
On February 6, a bench presided over by Justice Rajnish R. Vyas utilized the appellate court's authority under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to revise the sentence. The case involved the rape of a 15-year-old girl, prosecuted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act of 2012. Justice Vyas stated, "The trial court rightly convicted but did not impose the statutory minimum sentence on the accused." He clarified that increasing the sentence to meet the legal minimum should not be viewed as an enhancement but rather as a necessary correction to comply with the law.
Legal Framework and Court's Rationale
The bench heard two appeals: one from the convict challenging the 7-year sentence, and another from the minor survivor seeking an enhancement. While maintaining the trial court's acquittal of the accused under IPC Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366-A (procuration of a minor girl), the court dismissed both appeals. Justice Vyas elaborated on the legal constraints, noting, "When the appeal is preferred for enhancement of the sentence, what is challenged is the discretion of the trial court. In this case, there is no discretion given to award a sentence less than 20 years for an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act."
He further explained that under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, courts are legally obligated to impose minimum punishments of 20 years and 10 years, respectively, with no leeway to reduce these terms. The bench emphasized, "It is necessary to mention that the court is legally bound to award the minimum punishment, and no discretion is given to award less than that."
Application of Section 42 and Final Ruling
In applying Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which mandates that the accused serve the greater of the applicable sentences, the court ruled that the convict must undergo 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to enforcing stringent penalties in cases involving sexual offences against children, ensuring that statutory protections are not undermined by judicial discretion.
The ruling sets a precedent for future cases, reinforcing that minimum sentences under acts like POCSO are non-negotiable. It highlights the appellate court's role in rectifying sentencing errors to uphold the rule of law and deliver justice to survivors.
