A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The appellant in this case was convicted under Sections 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) along with a fine of INR 5,000, defaulting which he would serve three additional months of simple imprisonment (SI). The High Court upheld the sentence. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the court reexamined the quantum of the sentence, considering the appellant’s arguments about the minimum sentence applicable at the time of the conviction, his role in supporting the victim, and his already served sentence of over seven years. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but upheld the conviction under Sections 3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act.

Keywords: Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Minimum Sentence, Sentence Reduction, Victim Compensation, Supreme Court.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Rajasekar v. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date: 5 February 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma

vi) Author: Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 152 : 2024 INSC 96

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None

x) Case is Related to: Criminal Law, specifically Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case addresses the quantum of sentence awarded under the POCSO Act. The appellant was initially convicted and sentenced to 10 years RI for sexually assaulting a minor. The appeal before the Supreme Court was limited to reviewing the quantum of the sentence. The appellant contended that he had served over seven years, the minimum sentence at the time of conviction, and emphasized his financial support to the victim.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant was convicted under Sections 3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor.

2. The Sessions Court sentenced him to 10 years RI, fined INR 5,000, and ordered victim compensation of INR 1,00,000 under Rule 7(2) of the POCSO Rules, 2012.

3. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal.

4. The appellant approached the Supreme Court, challenging only the quantum of sentence, citing the already served sentence duration and ongoing financial support to the victim.

5. The appellant argued that the minimum sentence of seven years applicable at the time of conviction had been served, and further imprisonment would adversely affect his family and the victim’s.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the quantum of the sentence awarded to the appellant was justified under the circumstances.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant had already served over seven years of imprisonment, which was the statutory minimum under Section 4 of the POCSO Act at the time of conviction.

ii) The counsel emphasized the appellant’s financial support to the victim and her child, arguing that prolonged imprisonment would disrupt this support.

iii) They sought leniency in sentencing to ensure justice was met for all parties involved.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The respondent’s counsel upheld the appropriateness of the sentence, stressing the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the victim.

ii) They highlighted that the trial court and High Court had independently affirmed the sentence as proportionate to the crime.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• The Supreme Court considered the mitigating circumstances, including the appellant’s already served sentence, his financial assistance to the victim, and the legal minimum sentence at the time.
• The Court concluded that reducing the sentence to the period already served would balance justice.

b. Obiter Dicta

• The Court remarked on the significance of compensatory justice, particularly in cases under the POCSO Act, where victims often require long-term support.

c. Guidelines

• The Court did not lay down explicit guidelines but emphasized that sentencing discretion must consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach to sentencing under the POCSO Act. By reducing the sentence to the period already served, the Court ensured fairness while upholding the appellant’s conviction. The emphasis on the appellant’s financial role in supporting the victim and the legal minimum sentence highlights the judiciary’s adaptability to unique case facts.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, AIR 2015 SC 2299 – Addressed proportionality in sentencing.

Important Statutes Referred

1. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
2. POCSO Rules, 2012