Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta have ruled that the higher punishment under either the POCSO Act or IPC must be imposed, rejecting pleas for lesser punishment under POCSO. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2025).

What was the Background of Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P Case? 

• The case involves Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh, who was accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter, approximately 9 years old at the time of the incident. 
• On 28th October 2015, an FIR was lodged by Smt. Rajani (wife of the appellant) at Police Station Chandpur, District Fatehpur. 
• According to the FIR, Rajani had gone to her parental home approximately two months prior with her youngest son Krishna (aged 2), leaving her minor daughter (the victim) and son Vishnu (aged 4) in the custody of her husband. 
• The incident allegedly occurred on 22nd October 2015 at approximately 8:00 p.m., when the appellant enticed his minor daughter, took her to the rooftop, and committed sexual assault upon her. 
• The victim was reportedly detained on the roof through threats and was only able to come down in the morning, at which point she narrated the incident to her grandfather, Ram Naresh Singh (PW-3). 
• Ram Naresh Singh telephonically informed the victim's mother (the informant) about the occurrence, after which the appellant allegedly absconded. 
• The informant initially did not go to her matrimonial home due to fear but later approached the police station with her father Ranjeet Singh, father-in-law Ram Naresh Singh, and the victim to file the FIR. 
• The investigation was undertaken by Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-7), and the minor victim was subjected to medical examination by Dr. Manisha Shukla (PW-4). 
• The medical examination revealed redness present over the labia minora in the victim's vagina, though her hymen was intact. Forensic material was collected for pathological examination, DNA mapping, and examination for the presence of spermatozoa. 
• The victim's birth certificate was collected from school, and she was examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (CrPC) wherein she made emphatic allegations of penetrative sexual assault against her father. 
• The appellant was charged with offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3/4/5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).  
• When questioned under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant denied the allegations, claiming he had been falsely implicated because he had previously lodged an FIR against his wife and his father (PW-3). He contended that at the time of the incident, the child was residing with his sister.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court addressed the appellant's contention regarding the application of Section 42A of the POCSO Act, which the appellant argued should override the provisions of the IPC due to its status as a special law. 
• The Court observed that Sections 42 and 42A of the POCSO Act operate in completely different spheres. Section 42 specifically addresses the quantum of punishment when an act constitutes an offence under both the POCSO Act and the IPC. 
• The Court noted that Section 42 mandates that when a particular act or omission constitutes an offence under both the POCSO Act and the IPC or Information Technology Act, 2000, the offender shall be liable to punishment under whichever law provides for a greater degree of punishment. 
• The Court observed that Section 42A, in contrast, deals with procedural aspects and gives overriding effect to the provisions of the POCSO Act over any other law where the two acts are inconsistent with each other. 
• The Court observed that Section 42A cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be interpreted to override the scope and ambit of the enabling provision, i.e., Section 42 of the POCSO Act. 
• The Court observed that since Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC provide for higher punishment compared to Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, the trial Court was justified in choosing the former to award punishment in accordance with Section 42 of the POCSO Act. 
• Regarding the enhancement of sentence by the High Court, the Court observed that under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC, courts have discretion to award a term sentence of minimum 10 years or imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the person's natural life. 
• The Court observed that there is no mandate that under these provisions, a convict must be awarded life imprisonment. The trial Court had exercised its discretion to award life imprisonment without specifying it would be for the remainder of the appellant's natural life. 
• The Court observed that the High Court, while deciding the appeal against conviction, had increased the rigour of punishment by directing that the life imprisonment would extend to the remainder of the appellant's natural life, which effectively eliminated any possibility of early release. 
• The Court referred to precedents including Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Navas v. State of Kerala, which established that constitutional courts could impose modified or fixed-term sentences in cases where life imprisonment is warranted but may fall short of the "rarest of rare" category. 
• The Court concluded that the High Court erred in enhancing the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused, especially in the absence of an appeal for enhancement by the State. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 

• Before it was covered under Section 376 of IPC. 
• Now Section 64 of BNS deals with whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• (f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; 
• (i)commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent. 

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 

Section 3: Penetrative Sexual Assault 

• This section defines what constitutes "penetrative sexual assault" of a child. It includes four scenarios: 
  • Penile penetration into a child's vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus. 
  • Insertion of any object or body part (other than penis) into a child's vagina, urethra, or anus. 
  • Manipulation of a child's body to cause penetration. 
  • Application of mouth to a child's genitals or making a child do this. 

Section 4: Punishment for Penetrative Sexual Assault 

• This section details the penalties for penetrative sexual assault: 
  • A minimum imprisonment of 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment, plus fine. 
  • For victims under 16 years, a minimum imprisonment of 20 years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the offender's natural life, plus fine. 
  • The fine is meant to cover the victim's medical expenses and rehabilitation. 

Section 5: Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault 

• This section defines "aggravated" cases of penetrative sexual assault, which include situations where: 
  • The offender is a police officer, armed forces member, public servant, or in a position of authority. 
  • The assault occurs in institutional settings (jails, hospitals, schools, religious institutions). 
  • Gang sexual assault occurs. 
  • Weapons, fire, or corrosive substances are used. 
  • The assault causes grievous harm or permanent injury. 
  • The victim is made pregnant or infected with HIV. 
  • The assault causes death. 
  • The victim has mental or physical disabilities. 
  • The assault is repeated. 
  • The victim is under 12 years of age. 
  • The offender is related to the child. 
  • The assault occurs during communal violence or natural calamities. 

Section 42: Alternate Punishment 

• This section addresses situations where an offence is punishable under both POCSO and other laws (like the Indian Penal Code or Information Technology Act). It establishes that the offender shall be punished under whichever law provides the greater punishment. 

Section 42A: Act Not in Derogation of Any Other Law 

• This section clarifies that POCSO provisions are supplemental to other laws, not replacements. In cases of inconsistency with other laws, POCSO's provisions override them to the extent of that inconsistency. 
• These sections collectively define sexual offences against children, establish severe punishments, and ensure that POCSO takes precedence when it offers stronger protections than other laws.