Satauram Mandavi v. the State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed
by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant’s appeal
challenging the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021 rendered by
the Trial Court was dismissed. By the said judgment, the appellant
was convicted under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 18601
and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
20122 and sentenced to imprisonment for life, meaning imprisonment
for the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of ₹10,000/-.
3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:
3.1. On 26.06.2019, the father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) lodged
FIR No. 37/2019 at Police Station Vishrampur, Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh. He stated that on 20.05.2019, he, his wife, and
mother had gone to attend a marriage ceremony in the village,
leaving their two children at home. The prosecutrix, then aged
about 5 years, was playing outside the house. When his wife
was later unable to locate their daughter, she went to the
appellant’s house and questioned him about her whereabouts.
Upon being confronted, the appellant fled.
3.2. The FIR was registered against the appellant alleging that he had
lured the prosecutrix to his house and committed rape upon her.
3.3. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under
Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3.4. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
adduced, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the
appellant had lured the minor prosecutrix into his house and
forcibly committed rape on her. The appellant was accordingly
convicted and sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act
1 IPC.
2 POCSO.
Satauram Mandavi v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along
with a fine.
3.5. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, affirmed the
conviction and sentence. It recorded that no leniency could be
shown in light of the fact that the victim was a five year old child
and the crime committed was of a grave and heinous nature.
3.6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant
has approached this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. By order dated 30.09.2024, notice was issued limited to the question
of sentence.
6. The submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the incident
occurred on 20.05.2019. While the conviction is under Section 6 of
the POCSO Act, the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences
(Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 16.08.2019,
enhanced the minimum sentence to 20 years and redefined
“imprisonment for life” to mean imprisonment for the remainder of
the natural life. It is the appellant’s contention that the sentencing
court erred in applying the amended provisions retrospectively, as
the incident in question took place prior to the amendment.
7. The State, opposing any modification in sentence, contends that the
appellant does not deserve any leniency considering the nature and
gravity of the offence committed.
8. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, prior to the 2019 amendment, read
as under:
“6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual
assault – Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual
assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than ten years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.”
9. This Court, having found no merit in the challenge to conviction,
had confined its notice to the question of sentencing. However, we
find merit in the appellant’s submission that since the offence was
committed on 20.05.2019, the amended provision of Section 6 of
the POCSO Act, which came into force on 16.08.2019, could not
have been applied to his case.
1542 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10. In this regard, Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India is relevant
and reads as under:
“20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences –
(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for
violation of a law in force at the time of the commission
of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected
to a penalty greater than that which might have been
inflicted under the law in force at the time of the
commission of the offence.”
11. The Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher
penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute. The Trial Court, in
applying the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 Amendment
to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, has effectively subjected the appellant
to a punishment greater than that which was permissible under the
law in force at the time of commission of the offence which is clearly
violative of the bar contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.
12. The sentence of “imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural
life,” as per the amended provision, did not exist in the statutory
framework on 20.05.2019, the date of the incident. Under the
unamended Section 6, the maximum punishment permissible was
imprisonment for life in its conventional sense and not imprisonment
till the remainder of natural life.
13. Accordingly, while we uphold the conviction of the appellant under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, we modify the sentence to that of
rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended
statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder
of the natural life. The fine of ₹10,000/- is maintained.
14. Appeal is partly allowed as per the findings above.
15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.
†