POCSO Case| Impact Of Obnoxious Act On Mind Of Victim-Child Will Be Lifelong: SC Convicts Man Accused Of Sexual Assault

The Court further also held, “Apart from the fact that the law provides for a minimum sentence, the crime committed by the respondent is very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment. the High Court committed an obvious error by holding that the act committed by the respondent was not an aggravated penetrative sexual assault.”

AOR Krishnanand Pandeya appeared for the Appellant while AOR Satish Pandey appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

The Respondent was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 5 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi. The respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act

Section 6 of the POCSO Act deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault for which the punishment is of 10 years (20 Years after 2019 Amendment). Whereas, Section 4 of the POCSO Act deals with penetrative sexual assault for which the punishment is of 7 years (10 Years after 2019 Amendment).

The appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court which modified the conviction of the Respondent from an offense punishable under Section 6 to Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The Apex Court while looking into the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, placed emphasis on Clause (m) of Section 5 which states that “whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault."

In this case, the victim was of 10 years so there is no doubt that the essential ingredient of aggravated penetrative sexual assault is satisfied.

The Court while overturning the decision of Allahabad High Court held that “the High Court has observed that Section 5 was not applicable. the High Court committed an obvious error by holding that the act committed by the respondent was not an aggravated penetrative sexual assault. In fact, the Special Court was right in punishing the respondent under Section 6”.

Further, for the contention that the Respondent has already undergone 7 years of imprisonment, the Court held that “there is no question of showing any leniency to him. Apart from the fact that the law provides for a minimum sentence, the crime committed by the respondent is very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment. the Special Court shall send the respondent to prison for undergoing the remaining sentence for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act."

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: State of U.P v. Sonu Kushwaha