If convicted under IPC, POCSO, law which has 'greater degree' of punishment will be applied: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for sexually assaulting his 9-year-old daughter. It, however, modified his sentence from jail term till remainder of natural life to life term.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said as per Section 42 of the POCSO Act, when the alleged acts or omissions constituted offence both under the IPC and the POCSO Act, then, the law which prescribed the greater degree of punishment would have to be applied.

In its judgment on March 7, 2025, the court, however, rejected a contention by appellant Gyanendra Singh alias Raja Singh that since the offence under Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act does not carry punishment of imprisonment for life, which means imprisonment for remainder of person’s natural life, the accused could only have been punished under the said provision and not under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC, looking to the inconsistency in the sentence provided.

His counsel said that Section 42A of the POCSO Act provided that where there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the POCSO Act and any other law, the provisions of the special law would have an overriding effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

"We feel that the said submission lacks merit. On the face of it, the fields of operation of Section 42 and Section 42A are in completely different spheres," the bench said.

The court pointed out Section 42 specifically deals with the quantum of punishment mandating that when a particular act or omission constitutes an offence, both under the POCSO Act and also under the provisions of the IPC or the Information Technology Act, 2000 then, the offender found guilty of the offence would be liable to punishment under the POCSO Act or under the provisions of the IPC whichever provides a punishment of a greater degree.

Section 42A of POSCO Act, on the other hand, deals with the procedural aspects and gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the POCSO Act over any other law for the time being in force where, the two acts are inconsistent with each other, the court said.

"Hence, the provisions of Section 42A of POSCO Act, by no stretch of imagination, can be interpreted so as to override the scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., Section 42 of POCSO Act," the court emphasised.

Singh the challenged the Allahabad High Court's judgment of 2019, which enhanced the sentence of life term awarded to him to till the end of natural life.

The HC upheld the trial court's judgment convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was held guilty of sexual assault upon his own daughter of nine-year-old.

He claimed he was falsely implicated in the case lodged on October 28, 2015 with Chandpur police station in Fatehpur district, for he had previously lodged an FIR against his own father and the wife.

The court found the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act was "wholly justified" as the girl had remained emphatic in her deposition.

"However, we feel that the High Court erred while directing that the appellant would have to serve life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life as provided under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC," the bench said.

Because of the HC's order, the rigour of the sentence awarded has been increased to the effect that the appellant would have to spend the remainder of his natural life in prison without any possibility of early release, the bench said.

The court ordered the accused would be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, as awarded by the trial court, without the stipulation that the life term will enure till the natural life of the appellant.