Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka filed an appeal under Section 377(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the respondent-accused, Shankar @ Shankrappa S/o Ramppa Hubballi, by the trial court in S.C. No. 44/2014 dated 26.03.2018. The accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The trial court imposed a sentence of less than ten years, whereas Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum sentence of ten years which may extend to imprisonment for life, and also a fine. The State contended that the sentence was inadequate and sought enhancement to the statutory minimum. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the trial court had erred in imposing a sentence less than the mandatory minimum prescribed by law. The court held that the sentence imposed was inadequate and illegal, and accordingly allowed the appeal, directing that the accused be sentenced to the minimum period of ten years as mandated under Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act. The judgment was pronounced on 22.04.2022 by a Division Bench comprising Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Inadequacy of Sentence - Section 377 Cr.P.C. - State Appeal - The State filed appeal under Section 377(1)(b) Cr.P.C. challenging the inadequate sentence imposed on the accused for offence under Section 5(1) of POCSO Act. The trial court had sentenced the accused to less than ten years, which is contrary to the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed under Section 5(1) of POCSO Act. Held that the sentence imposed is inadequate and requires enhancement to the statutory minimum. (Paras 1-6) B) Criminal Law - POCSO Act - Minimum Sentence - Section 5(1) POCSO Act - Mandatory Imprisonment - Section 5(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 prescribes a minimum sentence of ten years which may extend to imprisonment for life. The trial court's imposition of sentence less than ten years is illegal and contrary to the statutory mandate. Held that the accused must be sentenced to the minimum prescribed period of ten years. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court for offence under Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act is inadequate and requires enhancement.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside and the accused is sentenced to the minimum period of ten years as mandated under Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act.
Law Points
- Section 377 Cr.P.C. empowers State to appeal against inadequacy of sentence
- Section 5(1) POCSO Act prescribes minimum sentence of ten years which cannot be reduced
- sentencing discretion must be exercised within statutory limits
