Facts: The accused was convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for committing forcible sexual intercourse with a minor victim under the pretext of marriage. The Trial Court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine. The victim also filed an appeal seeking the imposition of a statutory minimum sentence. The accused appealed against the conviction.
Procedural Posture: Two criminal appeals were filed in the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 2024 was filed by the accused challenging his conviction. Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2024 was filed by the victim seeking enhancement of the sentence to the statutory minimum. The High Court heard both appeals together.
Issue: (1) Whether the accused was rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court? (2) Whether imposing a statutory minimum sentence by the Appellate Court, by taking recourse to Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the Trial Court did not award it, would amount to enhancement of sentence?
Holding: (1) Yes, the accused was rightly convicted. (2) No, imposing the statutory minimum sentence in appeal does not amount to an enhancement of the sentence, but rather a correction of the Trial Court's error in not applying the mandatory minimum.
Reasoning: The High Court reasoned that the victim was a minor, and her consent was irrelevant. The medical evidence corroborated the victim's testimony. The Court emphasized that Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act raise a presumption against the accused, which he failed to rebut. The Court held that the Trial Court erred in not imposing the statutory minimum sentence as prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (20 years) and Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC (10 years). The Court clarified that imposing the statutory minimum sentence is not an enhancement but a correction to ensure the sentence is "authorised by law" as per Section 28 of the Cr.P.C. The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments to support the view that a sentence less than the statutory minimum is illegal. The Court also noted that Section 42 of the POCSO Act mandates that if an act constitutes offenses under both the POCSO Act and the IPC, the punishment should be awarded under the law that provides for a greater degree of punishment.