Blitz Bureau
THE Supreme Court has clarified that when a person is convicted for an offence under both the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the rape provisions of the IPC, Section 42 of the POCSO Act mandates the imposition of the higher degree of punishment prescribed either under the POCSO Act or Indian Penal Code (IPC), according to Live Law.
The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta further stated that no plea for a lesser punishment under the POCSO Act can be entertained if the IPC prescribes a higher punishment for certain offences by arguing that Section 42A, as a special law, overrides the IPC, which is considered a general law.
The Bench was hearing the case where the appellant was convicted by the trial court for sexually assaulting his minor daughter under Sections 376(2)(f) (rape by a relative or person in a position of trust) and 376(2) (i) (rape of a woman incapable of giving consent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (penetrative sexual assault and punishment).
Following the mandate of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the trial court sentenced the appellant to suffer life imprisonment under the IPC and imposed a fine. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant moved the high court. Upholding the conviction, the HC modified the sentence from simple life imprisonment to life imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life.
Challenging the HC decision, the appellant moved to the Supreme Court, arguing that the punishment prescribed under the POCSO Act should be applied instead of that prescribed under the IPC because of the overriding effect of Section 42A of the POCSO Act. Apart from this argument, the appellant also challenged the enhancement of the sentence by the HC, arguing that the court cannot enhance the sentence in an appeal against conviction filed by the accused.
The court referred to Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which states that when an act constitutes an offence under both the POCSO Act and the IPC, the offender shall be liable to punishment under the law that provides for the greater degree of punishment.
It held that the IPC provisions (Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i)) provide for a higher punishment (life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life) compared to the POCSO Act (which provides for a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment). The court concluded that the conviction under the IPC was justified, as it provided for a more severe punishment.
