Supreme Court Sets Aside Revised POCSO Sentence; Restores Original Sentence Invoking Article 142 To Release Convict
The Supreme Court noted that the man was initially subjected to imprisonment of seven years, but completed an actual sentence of eleven years and eight months.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside a man's revised sentencing to life imprisonment in a POCSO case by the High Court and ordered his release by restoring the original sentence invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, pointing out his over-eleven-year incarceration, which exceeded the initial sentence imposed.
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had previously upheld the conviction of the Appellant for offences under Sections 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 376 of the IPC.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that “instead of remanding the Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 on the file of the High Court, we exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and restore the original sentence imposed on the appellant herein which is seven years of imprisonment. Since the appellant has completed eleven years and eight months of incarceration i.e. a sentence more than that originally imposed on him, we find that the ends of justice would be met if, instead of rehearing his appeal on the original sentence, the matter is concluded and the appellant is released from jail forthwith.”
AOR Sangeeta Kumar appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Shrirang B. Varma represented the Respondent.
Proceedings before the High Court
The Prosecution alleged that the complainant had reported that the accused had taken his four-year-old daughter to his house, removed her clothes, and committed rape opon her in 2013.
During the trial, the Special Court held that the Prosecution had proved that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim.
Given this finding and the fact that the victim was a child below 12 years, the High Court pointed out that the accused should have been charged and punished under Section 5(m) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
The High Court held, “In view of the above, I maintain the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge that the accused has committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. However, considering the provisions of Section 5(m) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, show cause notice is given to the appellant as to why he should not be sentenced as per Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Act.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the Orders of the High Court and the Special Court were erroneous and liable to be set aside.
“In the circumstances, we find that to do complete justice in the matter, instead of remanding the Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 on the file of the HighCourt, we exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and restore the original sentence imposed on the appellant herein which is seven years of imprisonment. Since the appellant has completed eleven years and eight months of incarceration i.e. a sentence more than that originally imposed on him, we find that the ends of justice would be met if, instead of rehearing his appeal on the original sentence, the matter is concluded and the appellant is released from jail forthwith,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “the Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 pending on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur is rendered infructuous and therefore, the same stands disposed of…Resultantly, the respondent-State and Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail, Maharashtra are directed to release the appellant from the jail forthwith.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Sachin v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 518)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Sangeeta Kumar; Advocates Vithika Garg, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi
Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Shrirang B. Varma and Siddharth Dharmadhikar