Punishment can't be greater than as provided in law prevalent: Karnataka High Court

Punishment can't be greater than as provided in law prevalent, says High Court

The high court has modified the sentence to 10 years’ imprisonment and fine amount of Rs 5,000 to an accused as against 20 years jail term awarded by the trial court under IPC section 376 (3).

The court said that under Article 20 of the Constitution, the punishment cannot be greater than what was provided in the law prevalent at the time of the commission of the offence.

The amended section 376 (3), prescribing 20 years’ imprisonment for repeated sexual assault on the victim between 16-20 years, came into force from April 21, 2018, while the crime against the accused was reported on October 13, 2015.

The complaint was filed by the mother of the victim, alleging that her second husband had repeatedly subjected her minor daughter to sexual assault.

The Byatarayanapura police in Bengaluru filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

On September 29, 2019, the special court held the husband guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of 20 years and pay fine of Rs 5,000 for the offence punishable under IPC section 376(3), read with section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) Act.

The accused stepfather challenged the conviction and argued that the trial court had wrongly convicted him under IPC section 376(3) as the amendment had come into effect only in April 2018. He further claimed that there was delay in filing the complaint.

Justice K Natarajan noted that as per Article 20 (1) of the Constitution, no one can be convicted for an act that was not an offence at the time of its commission, and no one can be given punishment greater than what was provided in the law prevalent at the time of its commission.

“Considering the facts and circumstances, the sentence of 20 years imposed by the trial court needs to be reduced to 10 years,” the court said. Since the accused has been in jail since October 13, 2015, he is entitled for set off as available under CrPC Section 428, the court said.

“The victim girl is 15 years old and the accused misused the absence of the complainant in the house and sexually assaulted the girl by showing her a knife. Therefore, considering the entire evidence on record, the prosecution is successful in proving that the accused sexually assaulted her, which falls under Section 376 (2) of IPC and Section 6 of the Pocso Act,” the court said.