Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with a criminal appeal by the State of West Bengal and a suo motu writ petition concerning the conviction of an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The victim was a 14-year-old girl who left her home on 20th May 2018 after being enticed by the accused. A female child was born to the victim, and the accused is the biological father. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 IPC, sentencing him to 20 years rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence. The High Court, in an appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and (3) IPC, purportedly exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, while acquitting the accused under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The Supreme Court, in a previous judgment dated 20th August 2024, set aside the High Court's order and restored the conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC, but postponed sentencing. The court noted that the victim's mother had disowned her, and the victim was continuously residing with the accused along with their child. The court appointed amicus curiae and heard submissions. The key legal issues were whether the High Court could quash non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC based on settlement or cohabitation, and what sentence and rehabilitation measures should be ordered. The court held that the High Court's exercise of power was erroneous as serious offences like rape and POCSO offences cannot be quashed on settlement. The court emphasized that the victim had no informed choice at the time of the offence due to her age and the State's failure to protect her. The court directed the State to formulate a rehabilitation scheme for the victim and her child, including counseling, education, and financial support. The court confirmed the sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment for the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, with no separate sentence under IPC. The judgment highlights the systemic failure of the State to protect the victim and the need for rehabilitation.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sentencing - POCSO Act, 2012, Section 6; IPC, 1860, Section 376(2)(n) and (3) - Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - The accused was convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl and sentenced to 20 years RI. The High Court erroneously quashed the conviction under Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court restored the conviction and proceeded to determine the sentence, considering the victim's lack of informed choice and the State's failure to protect her. (Paras 2-5, 23-25) B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of Non-Compoundable Offences - The High Court cannot quash prosecution for serious offences like rape and POCSO offences even if the victim and accused have settled or cohabit. Such offences are not compoundable and settlement has no legal sanction. (Paras 23-23.1) C) Victimology - Rehabilitation - POCSO Act, 2012 - Systemic Failure - The State failed to provide support to the minor victim, who was abandoned by her parents and had no option but to stay with the accused. The court directed the State to formulate a rehabilitation scheme for the victim and her child, including counseling, education, and financial support. (Paras 24-25, 30-35) D) Sentencing - Mitigating Circumstances - POCSO Act, 2012, Section 6; IPC, 1860, Section 376 - The court considered the victim's current cohabitation with the accused and the birth of a child, but held that the gravity of the offence and the victim's lack of informed choice at the time of the offence warranted a sentence of 20 years RI, as imposed by the trial court. (Paras 2, 30-35)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the conviction for non-compoundable offences under the POCSO Act and IPC based on settlement or cohabitation; and what should be the appropriate sentence and rehabilitation measures for the victim and her child.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) and (3) IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The court directed the State of West Bengal to formulate a rehabilitation scheme for the victim and her child, including counseling, education, and financial support, and to file a compliance report within three months.
Law Points
- POCSO Act
- Section 6
- Section 376 IPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- quashing of non-compoundable offences
- rehabilitation of victim
- sentencing
- informed choice
- systemic failure of State
