Supreme Court Holds High Court Erred in Retrospectively Applying 2019 POCSO Amendment to Sentence Accused in Child Sexual Assault Case. Pre-2019 Section 6 of POCSO Act, Not Amended Section, Applies to Offence Committed in 2016, as Article 20(1) Bars Retroactive Penal Enhancement.

Case Note & Summary

The case arose from an incident on 17.02.2016 in which a three-year-old girl was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The victim's father, Dinesh Tope (PW-2), lodged FIR No. 35/2016 at Ambagarh Chowki Police Station, Rajnandgaon District, Chhattisgarh, alleging that the appellant, Balesh Kumar Kuraiti, had taken the child from her home and assaulted her. The victim's mother, Devki Bai (PW-1), reported that the child returned crying with injuries on her cheeks, nose, lips, and private parts and that the child had been raped. The FIR was registered under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After investigation, the appellant was arrested on 18.02.2016, and charges were framed under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 6 and 8 of POCSO Act. The trial court, by judgment dated 18.04.2017, convicted the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, relying on the victim's testimony, her parents' corroborative evidence, medical findings of genital injuries, and FSL confirmation of human sperm on the vaginal slide. It sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs 10,000 and default simple imprisonment of one year, to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, by judgment dated 14.02.2024, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for both offences, applying the 2019 Amendment to Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court, which by order dated 13.04.2026 issued notice limited to the quantum of sentence, leaving the conviction undisturbed. The sole legal issue framed was whether the High Court was justified in reducing the substantive sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years rigorous imprisonment by taking the 2019 Amendment into consideration. The appellant contended that the 2019 Amendment, which enhanced the minimum sentence from ten to twenty years and added the phrase 'imprisonment for the remainder of natural life', could not be applied to an offence committed in 2016. The Supreme Court examined Section 6 of POCSO Act as it stood before and after the 2019 Amendment, noted that the amendment was brought into force prospectively from 16.09.2019, and held that Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibited conviction or sentence under a law not in operation at the time of the offence. It relied on Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2025 INSC 892) to reiterate that a court cannot impose a sentence not within the statutory framework at the time of the offence. The Court also discussed Section 376(2)(i) IPC, noting that prior to its omission, the provision prescribed rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years extendable to imprisonment for life, which meant imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life. It observed that imprisonment for life simpliciter under pre-amendment Section 6 POCSO entitled the convict to seek remission subject to conditions. The Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that the High Court erred in applying the 2019 Amendment and that Section 6 of POCSO Act as it stood prior to the 2019 Amendment shall be applicable. The available text ends before the final operative directions on Section 42 and sentencing, but the Court had clearly concluded that the amended minimum punishment could not be imposed retrospectively.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Court framed the issue whether High Court was justified in reducing sentence from life to 20 years RI by applying 2019 Amendment. It answered in negative, holding that High Court erred in applying amended 2019 provision; Section 6 POCSO Act as it stood prior to 2019 Amendment shall be applicable. It further observed that Court cannot impose sentence not within statutory framework at time of offence. No final operative order is available in the provided text.

Law Points